Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Lior Pachter Profile picture
@lpachter
Sep 5, 2020 • 6 tweets • 2 min read • Read on X
So yesterday I received reviews back for one of my papers. The paper received 6 (yes, 6!) reviews. This has never happened before in my career. I was surprised at the number of reviews, given the pandemic and how busy everyone is. Then saw this... 🤔
The reviews were thorough and helpful, and generally positive (some comments were very positive). I was therefore disappointed with the decision (reject). I guess we'll revise the paper and submit elsewhere.
But then the paper will have been reviewed >= 9 times (!) And that is quite something... because the paper has a total of 9 paragraphs... If you do the math, that's 1 reviewer per paragraph...

This is the paper:
Peer review is COMPLETELY broken. I've participated in large consortia projects where super complex papers are getting a handful of sentences of review from just a handful of reviewers. The publication process ends up being a negotiation with editors about a "package".
In those papers, whose publication is basically a foregone conclusion because $$ citations $$, the results are not even reproducible, methods poorly described (if at all), and authorship is a joke (please fill your name in an excel spreadsheet if you'd like to be an author).
But good to know our small opinion piece is getting 1 reviewer per paragraph.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Lior Pachter

Lior Pachter Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @lpachter

Lior Pachter Profile picture
Sep 10
So this plagiarism thing has happened to our lab.. again. This time it's plagiarism of our poseidon syringe pump paper @booeshaghi et al., 2019 in @SciReports:
Text has been plagiarized, as well as figures copied directly here: 1/🧵nature.com/articles/s4159…
ijirset.com/upload/2024/ma…
Here is figure 1 from our paper (LHS) and figure 1 in the plagiarized paper (RHS) published in the "International Journal of Innovative Research" 2/ ijirset.com/upload/2024/ma…

Image
Image
The text seems to have been rewritten with an LLM. Our introduction (LHS) vs. the plagiarized version (RHS): 3/
Image
Image
Read 11 tweets
Lior Pachter Profile picture
Aug 16
I've checked this paper out, as instructed. I was also interested in the main result for personal reasons: I'm 51 years old. Is it true that I've just gone through a major change? And that another one awaits me in just a few years?

Some comments on the paper in this thread 1/🧵
The main result about major changes in the mid 40s and 60s is shown in this plot (Fig. 4a). First, I redrew it with axes that start at 0, so the scale of change here was clearer. Not as impressive, but maybe it's a thing? 2/
Image
Image
The authors say that this finding is even corroborated in another study (ref 14). But that's not true. I looked it up, and it shows something totally different (see RHS Fig 3c from ref 14). No change in mid 40s, but a change in the mid 30s, and the real change in the 80s 😕 3/
Image
Image
Read 17 tweets
Lior Pachter Profile picture
Aug 10
I recently posted on @bound_to_love's work quantifying long-read RNA-seq. In response, a scientist acting in bad faith (Rob Patro @nomad421) trashed our work. This kind of mold in science's bathroom is extremely damaging so here's a bit of bleach. 1/🧵
At issue are benchmarking results we performed comparing our tool, lr-kallisto, to other programs including Patro's Oarfish. Shortly after we posted our preprint Patro started subtweeting our work, claiming we'd run an "appallingly wrong benchmark" and that we're "bullies". 2/
Image
Image
This was followed, within days, by Patro posting a hastily written preprint disguised as research work on benchmarking, but really just misusing @biorxivpreprint to broadcast the lie that our work "... may be repeatable, but it appears neither replicable nor reproducible." 3/ Image
Read 25 tweets
Lior Pachter Profile picture
Aug 1
This recently published figure by @Sarah_E_Ancheta et al. is very disturbing and should lead to some deep introspection in the single-cell genomics community (I doubt it will).

It demonstrates complete disagreement among 5 widely used "RNA velocity" methods 1/ Image
This is of course no surprise. In "RNA velocity unraveled" by @GorinGennady et al. in @PLOSCompBiol we wrote 55 page paper explaining the many ways in which RNA velocity makes no sense. 2/ journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/a…
We're not the only ones to understand how flawed RNA velocity is. The paper from the groups of @KasperDHansen and @loyalgoff is titled "pumping the brakes on RNA velocity". The whole notion of putting arrows on UMAPs is ridiculous. 3/genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.11…
Read 6 tweets
Lior Pachter Profile picture
Jul 29
I was recently schooled on some Gen Z and Gen Alpha brainrot. Here's a yap about it:

1/🧵
Delulu:

"I just submitted my R01. I'm sure this one is going to finally get funded!"

You're delulu.

2/
Cap:

"Reviewer #3 accepted our paper without revisions no cap!!"

You're capping be for real! 3/
Read 13 tweets
Lior Pachter Profile picture
Jul 25
Challenge accepted. Here are a few comments on the paper after starting to wade through its massive content. The paper in question is 1/🧵 nature.com/articles/s4158…
First, the claim that "lower OPC fraction across regions and, in particular, in non-neocortex regions was significantly associated with impaired cognition (Supplementary Fig. 37d)" is not true. Supp. Fig. 37d is below. I've boxed in red the panel the claim is based on. 2/ Image
The R^2 value, i.e. proportion of variance explained is 0.0256. The "significance" claim is based on the reported p-value of 0.0071 which is less than 0.05. However significance vanishes once one corrects for the number of tests performed. 3/
Read 22 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(