Thats great! 416 experienced qualitative researchers from 38 countries reject the use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) applications for Big Q Qualitative approaches, such as reflexive thematic analysis, or various phenomenological approaches.

They describe three primary reasons for the rejection:
1. GenAI as simulated intelligence is incapable of meaning making
2. Qualitative research should remain a distinctly human practice
3. The established manifold harms of GenAI, especially to the environment and workers in the Global South

"[...] the algorithmic patterns upon which GenAI operates predisposes GenAI to identify, replicate and reinforce dominant language and patterns; risking the further quieting of marginal voices and practices, including those of critical scholars. The voices and practices of people who live/breathe/feel/imagine/construct knowledge in the maroons of life – along with their stunning/quirky/complex/unpredictable ways – may be lost or worse; sacrificed."

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5676462

#PositionStatement #Preprint #GenAI #NoGenAI #QualitativeResearch #Research #Science #BigQ

🧠 New #preprint by Komi et al. (2025): Neural #manifolds that orchestrate walking and stopping. Using #Neuropixels recordings from the lumbar spinal cord of freely walking rats, they show that #locomotion arises from rotational #PopulationDynamics within a low-dimensional limit-cycle #manifold. When walking stops, the dynamics collapse into a postural manifold of stable fixed points, each encoding a distinct pose.

🌍 https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.11.08.687367

#CompNeuro #NeuralDynamics #Attractor #Neuroscience

"It's a fundamental shift in how scholarly discussions can work. When you start a discussion on Sciety, that conversation becomes part of the Fediverse, discoverable and participatory for researchers on our preprint focussed bonfire instance (discussions.sciety.org) and, if you choose, other Bonfire instances, Mastodon, any platform that speaks the ActivityPub protocol and Bluesky (via bridging functionality).

#MarkWilliams, 2025

https://blog.sciety.org/bridging-preprints-and-the-fediverse/

#OpenResearch #PrePrint #Sciety

Thats great! 416 experienced qualitative researchers from 38 countries reject the use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) applications for Big Q Qualitative approaches, such as reflexive thematic analysis, or various phenomenological approaches.

They describe three primary reasons for the rejection:
1. GenAI as simulated intelligence is incapable of meaning making
2. Qualitative research should remain a distinctly human practice
3. The established manifold harms of GenAI, especially to the environment and workers in the Global South

"[...] the algorithmic patterns upon which GenAI operates predisposes GenAI to identify, replicate and reinforce dominant language and patterns; risking the further quieting of marginal voices and practices, including those of critical scholars. The voices and practices of people who live/breathe/feel/imagine/construct knowledge in the maroons of life – along with their stunning/quirky/complex/unpredictable ways – may be lost or worse; sacrificed."

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5676462

#PositionStatement #Preprint #GenAI #NoGenAI #QualitativeResearch #Research #Science #BigQ

our preview website has been revamped: https://preview.biohackrxiv.org/

#biohackrxiv #preprint #biohackathon

our preview website has been revamped: https://preview.biohackrxiv.org/

#biohackrxiv #preprint #biohackathon

This #PeerReviewWeek why not join a collaborative, Live Review, hosted by @prereview and @JMIRPub to provide feedback to a #preprint?

WHEN: Sep 18, 2025, at 08:00 PT / 11:00 ET / 15:00 UTC

WHAT: Join a 90-minute collaborative discussion of the following preprint
‘Interactive Evaluation of an Adaptive-Questioning Symptom Checker Using Standardized Clinical Vignettes’

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.21.25333628

WHERE: Zoom - https://bit.ly/sep18-LiveReview

#PRW2025 #reviewtogether

Join our @span prereview Champions Team and the @span eLife Ambassadors this #PeerReviewWeek to collaboratively review a #preprint.

When: Friday, September 19 at 3pm UTC
What: A 90-minute discussion of this preprint '‘Comparing the outputs of intramural and extramural grants funded by National Institutes of Health’ (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.11.09.56629)
Where: Zoom, sign up to register at: https://bit.ly/Sep19-Live-Review

#PRW2025#PeerReviewWeek#PreprintPeerReview

This #PeerReviewWeek why not join a collaborative, Live Review, hosted by @prereview and @JMIRPub to provide feedback to a #preprint?

WHEN: Sep 18, 2025, at 08:00 PT / 11:00 ET / 15:00 UTC

WHAT: Join a 90-minute collaborative discussion of the following preprint
‘Interactive Evaluation of an Adaptive-Questioning Symptom Checker Using Standardized Clinical Vignettes’

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.21.25333628

WHERE: Zoom - https://bit.ly/sep18-LiveReview

#PRW2025 #reviewtogether

Excellent new #preprint by @olivia about the dangers of mindless #AI use in science and education: https://philpapers.org/versions/GUEATU

Really makes you see those google gemini ads in which humans are depicted as incompetent nincompoops who don't know how sink siphons or smelling things to assess whether they're spicy or not work in a new light.

Excellent new #preprint by @olivia about the dangers of mindless #AI use in science and education: https://philpapers.org/versions/GUEATU

Really makes you see those google gemini ads in which humans are depicted as incompetent nincompoops who don't know how sink siphons or smelling things to assess whether they're spicy or not work in a new light.

I will never understand why the authors of a manuscript that they post on a preprint server spontaneously decide that it will be better for whoever reads their manuscript to have not only all the figures at the end, but also separated from the legends?

WHY 😭

(Same question for papers sent to review btw. Most journals allow for the format of your choice for the first submission. WHY not make it a nice, easily readable format??)

#ScientificJournals#ResearchPapers#Academia#Preprint#PeerReview

Trop gros, trop cher, trop moche..., le système de publications scientifiques est à bout de souffle. Un article de "niche" pour passer un bon été :https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2025/07/07/le-monde-des-revues-scientifiques-au-bord-de-l-asphyxie_6619660_1650684.html
(allez au bout car il y a des messages d'espoirs...)

et en bonus, un "appui" sur l'usage de l'IA qui n'arrange rien,
https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2025/07/07/comment-l-ia-bouscule-les-publications-scientifiques_6619655_1650684.html

#science #preprint #recherche #pci #pubpeer #matilda #openaccess #retraction
@BorisBarbour @enroweb @ElisabethBik

Trop gros, trop cher, trop moche..., le système de publications scientifiques est à bout de souffle. Un article de "niche" pour passer un bon été :https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2025/07/07/le-monde-des-revues-scientifiques-au-bord-de-l-asphyxie_6619660_1650684.html
(allez au bout car il y a des messages d'espoirs...)

et en bonus, un "appui" sur l'usage de l'IA qui n'arrange rien,
https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2025/07/07/comment-l-ia-bouscule-les-publications-scientifiques_6619655_1650684.html

#science #preprint #recherche #pci #pubpeer #matilda #openaccess #retraction
@BorisBarbour @enroweb @ElisabethBik

Hacer un doctorado en ciencias tiene un poco de apostolado.

Hoy, como #orientadororgulloso me doy el gusto de compartir el #preprint del segundo artículo del doctorado de Cristina Parada.

Poco se sabe del gen Ptr, aunque perderlo es, casi seguro, una condena a muerte antes de nacer (afecta seriamente los músculos, y probablemente el desarrollo del sistema nervioso entre otras cosas).

Usando moscas de la fruta, un bichito conveniente y barato, Cristina y un gran equipo descubrieron que una mutación en Ptr altera la maduración y dinámica de las células del sistema inmunitario.
Cuánto pueda decirnos esto de alteraciones más profundas del sistema inmunitario está por verse, pero es sin duda un hallazgo importante.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.07.03.662979v1

@constanzasilvera
#pedeciba #biologia #phd #doctorado #ciencias #drosophila #drosophilamelanogaster #iibce #biorxivpreprint @biorxiv_devbio @flypapers #udelar #posgrado #mujeresenciencias#biologíadeldesarrollo #development #biologiacelular #madeinuruguay#Uruguay

Hacer un doctorado en ciencias tiene un poco de apostolado.

Hoy, como #orientadororgulloso me doy el gusto de compartir el #preprint del segundo artículo del doctorado de Cristina Parada.

Poco se sabe del gen Ptr, aunque perderlo es, casi seguro, una condena a muerte antes de nacer (afecta seriamente los músculos, y probablemente el desarrollo del sistema nervioso entre otras cosas).

Usando moscas de la fruta, un bichito conveniente y barato, Cristina y un gran equipo descubrieron que una mutación en Ptr altera la maduración y dinámica de las células del sistema inmunitario.
Cuánto pueda decirnos esto de alteraciones más profundas del sistema inmunitario está por verse, pero es sin duda un hallazgo importante.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.07.03.662979v1

@constanzasilvera
#pedeciba #biologia #phd #doctorado #ciencias #drosophila #drosophilamelanogaster #iibce #biorxivpreprint @biorxiv_devbio @flypapers #udelar #posgrado #mujeresenciencias#biologíadeldesarrollo #development #biologiacelular #madeinuruguay#Uruguay

@UlrikeHahn
We as researchers are just super naive. If you ask me, those things go back to Big #Tabacco vs #Science
Ironically, they demanded what we in #OpenScience demand nowadays, but with a very different aim... :(

I touch upon that in a recent #preprint on open data: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hk786_v1

"Long before today’s #Open #Science movements, the Executive Committee of the Sound Science Coalition (1994; cited in Ong & Glantz, 2001) published guidelines that align with what Open Science practices advocate today. For example:
(1) The study design should inform about all hypotheses,
(2) after the study was conducted, the data should be analyzed as described in the study design, and
(3) if the data does not support the hypotheses, no further analyses are necessary.
Shockingly, in #1994 these recommendations were motivated by the fact that parts of the #tobacco industry aimed to #discredit research and researchers on a large scale, with the goal that it could not be legally established that smoking increases the risk of lung #cancer (Drope, 2001; Muggli et al., 2001; Ong & Glantz, 2001). Along this line, one may accuse researchers as having been naive to the vested interests aligning with scientific rigour by non-researchers."