OK. I have spent much of the week finally sinking my teeth into this paper. It's really well written and convincing. But the headline result as cast a shadow over some nuances that the authors talk about but have been ignored in the commentary.

https://twitter.com/maxdkozlov/status/1610672547267215362

The authors do say and show that the result is much less pronounced for the life sciences. That's the sandbox I like to study so, ignoring some unimportant caveats, I have replicated their results for the PubMed universe. /2

@bfjo and I have some thoughts on science policy and COVID-19 which will appear in the issue of @ScienceMagazine dated tomorrow. science.sciencemag.org/content/368/64… Our main point is simple: only through innovation can we hope to escape the brutal choice between protecting public health and safeguarding the economy. 1/N

Dr. Tony Fauci has become a bit of a household name these past few weeks, and probably the only member of the Trump administration with bipartisan credibility. @m_heggeness, Wes Greenblatt and I can shed some light on the the origin story of this medical superhero. 1/N You see, back in 1966, this young graduate from the Cornell University Medical College applied to the Associate Training Program [ATP] run by the National Institutes of Health and was one of about 185 selected. 2/N

Great new paper by @dashunwang and colleagues in next week's issue of Nature [1/12] One of the most robust finding in the "science of science" field is the correlations between team size and citation rates. But impact and novelty (or at least "interesting novelty") are not one and the same. [2/12]