Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 26/09/2026100% I was just going to say the same thing. Like how frustrating to get, after you already did a thoughtful revision, an 1800 word AI review of mostly drivel that an overworked poor AE just sends along. Its rough out there 000 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 20/09/2026Strong disagree. This move would be substantially different and more aggressive than the changes thus far imposed by Vought/OMB. I think it is incorrect to frame it as “what had already pretty much happened.“ 020 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 12/09/2026This is definitely happening and you are 100% correct that that it leads to verbose and tedious reviews that miss the forest for the trees. It’s very damaging because authors have to invest a lot of time and resources responding to numerous trivial critiques. 011 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 29/08/2026No one chose the thumbnail. The image is auto generated based on the content of the page 100 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 28/08/2026agree, leaving out this point of limiting MPI apps by not prorating them made me completely dismiss the entire NIH post. Completely non serious for the moment. 000 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 27/08/2026Thanks for engaging. I think in the medical field BMJ is an example of fully open review even including notes from internal editorial meetings — at least for accepted manuscripts. 010 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 26/08/2026I mean, this is already a thing at certain wonderful journals, e.g., Health Affairs, Social Science and Medicine, American Journal of Public Health. Also most journals in med anthro too. I believe Nature also offers optional double blind review as an option for reviewers 110 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 26/08/2026Out of curiosity, why wouldn't publishers want to anonymize? Is this because they perceive value or efficiency in seeing the author lists/affiliation? Or more a function of the effort required to change current practices and do anonymization well? 110 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 26/08/2026my concern: All of these results which will be interpreted causally by most readers could be explained by systematic differences in manuscript quality. this is potentially reasonable given Chinese paper mills. I’m very open to the bias suggested here but as you note higher quality data needed. 110 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 20/08/2026Nothing makes me 🙄 more than an academic who uses the term “thought leader” to describe themself 000 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 14/08/2026These guys can go to hell. This is obviously just another ploy to increase political power over grant making. So much for transparency and gold standard science. All these changes day 1 we kick Trump out of office. 000 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 12/08/2026Much of an NIH grant is recycled gibberish to begin with even before AI. I agree with dinging people for careless use of AI, but we should be equal critical when a resources attachment is obvious copy-pasted slop. In my experience study sections are normalized to let that slide a bit 000 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 12/08/2026I couldn’t disagree more. What mechanism is there to disclose AI use in a grant? Why does it matter if AI was used, aren't we in it do do great science? 200 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 11/08/2026On the subject, did you see this: techcrunch.com/2026/08/11/a... support.claude.com/en/articles/...techcrunch.comAnthropic says it will watermark text generated by its AI models | TechCrunchAnthropic will extend support for watermarking AI generations for older models as well. 000 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 28/07/2026Part of Vought’s genius (albeit that evil kind) is his ability to identify these types of changes which seem minor and totally reasonable at the surface level but as a whole reflect a relentless focus on building clientalistic dictatorship 000 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 05/07/2026Fable refuses to even provide copy edits on my trial protocol. It’s not anthropic’s fault though. They obviously would have preferred The initial version of Trump admin wasn’t so dumb 010 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 12/06/2026He benched 44 reps, quit with this b.s., this is very solid (Though I wouldn't score them all as he does not fully extend.) There are many legit reasons to despite this man, stick to those www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbKT...youtube.comWatch Pete Hegseth CRUSH 44 Bench Press RepsYouTube video by New York Post 010 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 10/06/2026I know you know this @drugmonkey.bsky.social but others may not. This RFI is a joke. If they cared about the putative goals ("maximize scientific productivity and innovation"), they wouldn't have throttled grants or used multi-year funding. They want to kill us; this is just another salvo. 133 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 10/06/2026Ha! equating this to lab leak. See ya buddy 000 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 10/06/2026The grumping here is ridiculous. It's day 1 of the release of this new class of frontier models. 100 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 28/05/2026Yes it is a maximalist interpretation of the same exact policy, designed to make us miserable. They are devious evil people. 100 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 28/05/2026The NIHGPS is actually unchanged on defining foreign collaboration though. Why is this a new definition? web.archive.org/web/20210413...web.archive.org1.2 Definition of Terms 100 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 28/05/2026NIH repeatedly has mentioned funding acknowledgements compliance in communications in the past few months. Maybe I am being paranoid and/or pedantic, but I wonder if they are going to start going after us for the classic way all NIH granteees report 100 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 28/05/2026The Stevens Act language itself seems to be less unambiguous: www.congress.gov/101/statute/... 100 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 28/05/2026Further more when you look at NIHGPS 4.2.1, I think what they assert is not supported by the language of the text, which stipulates $/% only need to be reported if there is cost sharing 100 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 28/05/2026Hey @azfaust.bsky.social: what do you make of the reminder here of the Stevens amendment requirements. I have never seen an NIH funded study report the level of detail they assert is required. 100 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 27/05/2026They won’t get reviewers to volunteer under this scheme. So this would effectively mean that there won’t even be scores anymore. 030 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 27/05/2026No one will review if they make this change. I will not. It will be the end of study section. Already SROs having a tough time filling panels. Maybe that’s the point? 100 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 27/05/2026If they stop releasing score, then it will be the end of study sections because reviewers will stop volunteering their time. I know I would stop. 131 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 11/05/2026unfortunate this will just mean watering down even more explicitly what tenure means for junior faculty members going up 000 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 04/05/2026Shame on them Jeremy. If only they were capable of that emotion. Signed, Investigator who was told to out "equity" from title and abstract 0130 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 29/04/2026Your 3 categories do not make sense; no one is in category 1 and never criticizing NIH. And stuffing all constructive criticism into an "abundance" bin just is not useful. It is idea entrepreneurship rather than real criticism. (Basically all I do every day is think about NIH grants) 060 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 17/03/2026All mentor mentee relationships are built on some degree of mutual benefit. These new tools dramatically change the balance of the relationship 010 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 13/03/2026It was publicly reported widely that Vought wanted to do a pocket rescission of NIH at the end of the fiscal year, but couldn't get the political support to do that. But my question is whether this money was taken from NIH through this route. 010 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 13/03/2026Not sure if the snark is necessary. I am extremely familiar with what has been going on over the past year. 130 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 13/03/2026I don’t understand how that is legal. This is a huge deal. The money was appropriated by congress. Was this a stealth pocket rescission that was never publicized? 121 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 11/03/2026I really do think all scientists should be proficient in these tools 110 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 11/03/2026I have found that AI really helps me be more efficient with the paperwork and admin processes of doing clinical research. At the same time, it has never helped me come up with a new scientific idea I thought was very compelling 210 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 11/03/2026But a lot of the work of being scientist is basically managing a small business. AI can tangibly make a difference here, even "non-scientific" things like copyediting protocols, translating study documents between languages, helping to write code for first-pass analyses, etc. 120 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 11/03/2026I have a slightly different view. I agree with your perspective that AI isn't going to let you delegate the hard work of coming up with ideas, interrogating them, running them by your buddies, putting them, and writing a legit aims page 100 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 19/02/2026This mechanism is a monstrosity. 30 pages of science, minimum, now? 000 0
Anonymous Scientist @accursedhats.bsky.social · 19/02/2026The thing that stops me in my tracks is the lack of insight that the son didn’t consent to die because of his unvaccinated status. 000 0
