Tim

@timisstuck.bsky.social

Executive Editor at Life Science Alliance. I help decide how biology thinks 🤔 Views are my own and do not reflect editorial policy. www.timfessenden.com

Weekend reading: this back and forth about a p16 reporter mouse for senescence and aging research. Read here in @emboreports.org and many more comments PubPeer. It seems to me that many journals are quite reluctant to publish these correspondences, to their great detriment.

Bild

Nice benchmarking resource for publication integrity guardrails with AI They prompted agents to generate false data or other forms of misconduct. Prompts were overt or covert attempts at misconduct, compared against a benign request. Strong showing for Claude, quite poor for DeepSeek

Bild

People say scientists are serious but marine biologists will spend hours quietly sitting around tables drawing on styrofoam cups and then tying said cups to deep sea submarines Because ocean pressure will squeeze the air from the cups And we are but human & we want tiny cup

A hand holding four shrunken styrofoam cups the size of shot glasses. Two with jellyfish colored on them and two with black and white lines

As absolutely bat shit, crazy as this sounds, we should ask ourselves why an author might make this assumption. If you are an editor, could an author make this assumption about your journal? If you are an author, does the editor give any signal that they read the reviews?

Andrew Bissette@andrewbissette.bsky.social · 3w ago

Not long ago in a call to discuss reviewer comments with an author, they said they didn't realise editors read reviewers' reports. I was pretty stunned. That's the fun part of the job!

Was chatting with a PI at a birthday party this weekend and I realized *again* what an awful state journal and editor practice is in: This was the ~1000th PI who had ***NEVER*** seen a decision letter from a journal that provided guidance on how to approach reviewer comments.

Unambiguous benefit accruing to @biologyopen.bsky.social and their authors. Impressed! As noted in the abstract and expanded on in the text, "While financial sustainability remains to be tested at scale..." The experimenting should continue, but this is not the time to further inflate APCs.

Daniel Gorelick@danielgorelick.bsky.social · 2mo ago

Paying peer reviewers works. Expanded Fast & Fair experiment @biologyopen.bsky.social: • 5.5 vs 37.7 working days to decision with reviews • ~3 vs ~9 reviewer invitations per manuscript • no reduction in editor-assessed review quality • similar acceptance rates www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6...

Scatter plot showing that Fast & Fair peer review reached first decision with reviews much faster than conventional peer review: mean 5.5 versus 37.7 working days. Most Fast & Fair manuscripts met the 7-working-day target, while conventional manuscripts were slower and more variable, up to 116 working days.

OMB just published 412 pages in the Federal Register (Docket OMB-2026-0034) giving political appointees authority to terminate any NIH grant, override peer review scores, and block you from publishing with federal funds. Comment period closes ~July 13. Thread 🧵

Bild

🧵 Public science in the US has taken some heavy hits over the last year, but the White House OMB is proposing a series of changes that will result in a TKO for science as we know it unless we fight back. Here's what's happening, and why it matters. 1/n

Was a very fun week at the @embl.org symposium on phase separation! A nice emerging theme was pH and electrostatic charge. Not much grappling with terms/naming conventions, but it was a safe space for just calling things as you wanted. Here was a nice view towards my colleagues @embopress.org

Bild