iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

honey wake up, the bots are drunk emailing again

screenshot of email, with some clarifying annotation in brackets:

Dear Dr. Bergelson,

In collaboration with our guest editor, [my own work email address] JoVE is producing a PubMed/WoS/Scopus-indexed collection of video articles on Elika. Based on your recent publications, we believe that your group's work would be a valuable addition to this collection.

Authors submit a traditional text manuscript, and JoVE takes care of the filming and video production. Here is a JoVE article from Jack W. Szostak, who is the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine, available here. [<- not actually a link]

Would you be interested in discussing an abstract submission?

1100

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 20/09/2026

reviewer 2: so uh, tell me about your filtering process bc that is a truly unexpected result me: ikr??

041

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 14/07/2026

ooh ooh guess the difference between what these buttons do:

a selection box that says
BULK
Download Applications as PDF
Download Applications as Individual PDFs
Create Document PDF per Candidate

100

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 24/06/2026

Oh good I was hoping someone would find a way to do (read: monetize) the part of my job that I enjoy the most *for* me

Email from springer nature that says “no time to write? Let us lighten your…
Bespoke author seevices”

2100

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 27/05/2026

e.g. of step 3, run the mail merge, and you get a sheet like this for every row in your spreadsheet. some text is the same for all, bolded fields are the individualzed stuff. ("A" is a placeholder for notes e.g. "on the right track but mixed up X/Y, -1pt" or whatever

doc that says:
Hi Test,

Your final score on Exam 1 was 44.5/43. That’s 103.5 %.
The class average was 37.82/43, or 88.01% (SD=11.59%), the median score was 91.75%.

Here’s your personalized grade breakdown.
For the multiple choice questions, you got 23/23.
For the matching/fill-in-the-blank questions, you got 8.5/8.5
For the open-ended questions, you got 11.5/11.5

Here are the comments & scores for your open-ended short-answer questions & Bonus. Comments clarify where you lost points, or provide general comments.

Question 1: Your score: 3/3
A

Question 3: Your score: 2/2
B

110

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 27/05/2026

e.g. of step 2: set up the mailmerge in word (the stuff in «» is the column names from the spreadsheet)

doc that says:
Hi «First_name»,

Your final score on Exam 1 was «Total_Overall»/43. That’s «Total_Percent» %.
The class average was 37.82/43, or 88.01% (SD=11.59%), the median score was 91.75%.

Here’s your personalized grade breakdown.
For the multiple choice questions, you got «MC_Total_23»/23.
For the matching/fill-in-the-blank questions, you got «SA_closed_85»/8.5
For the open-ended questions, you got «SA_open_115»/11.5

Here are the comments & scores for your open-ended short-answer questions & Bonus. Comments clarify where you lost points, or provide general comments.

Question 1: Your score: «SA1_3»/3
«Notes_SA1»

Question 3: Your score: «SA3_2»/2
«Notes_SA3»

110

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 27/05/2026

e.g. of step 1 (w/dummy example) in your excel put their names, scores on the sub parts, notes ab what you took points off for on the short answer (easy to c&p & be consistent across students), u could break down the MC too e.g. questions from lecture vs. reading if u want, i don't in this demo

spreadsheet with a header row and sample values for the columns
row 1: First_name Name version Total_Percent Total_Overall MC_Total_23 SA_closed_8.5 SA_open_11.5 SA1_3 Notes_SA1 SA3_2 Notes_SA3
row 2: Test Lastname, Test A 103.5 44.5 23 8.5 11.5 3 A 2 B

100

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 07/05/2026

helluva way to announce you're firing people, amirite?

email titled 'Vacancies Coming Soon, U.S. National Science Foundation Update'

020

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 30/04/2026

spam's getting bold. honey i did respond. by reporting this as spam and moving on with my day.

email that says:
Dear Elika Bergelson,

We wrote you a letter on the date below, but you didn't respond. This is the second time we've written to you, and we hope you'll think about what we asked this time.

We can find out what's wrong and try to fix it if you respond to our message.

Please write a letter of application and send it to this address. Please let us know within a day if you agree.

The OJS-Submission System Link you can trust is https://dx.doi.org/10.17352/tcsit

040

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 29/04/2026

so proud of this motley crew. Gonna start versioning the lab like we're updates to #RStudio: Harvard Psych BLAB Spring 2026 "Great Question" fondest wishes to departing postdocs and RAs! #BragelsonLab

smiling crew of scholars with a congratulations ice cream cake!

0100

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 23/04/2026

I saw the sign. Did not pass. Didn’t see the point.

Sign fencing off something that says “muster point”

010

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 31/03/2026

ooh intriguing, the Office of the Director, which may have the most leverage on what's 'priority' (including e.g. High Risk High Reward) actually shows a weird pattern: MORE than the avg # of grants in '25 (auto "less than" text is wrong), but diddly in '26. @jeremymberg.bsky.social thoughts on OD?

graph showing virtually no new grants from NIH office of director though text shows that in 2025 411 were awarded (which is above the average of 310 from 2021-2024)

110

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 31/03/2026

love to be in the controversial field of...checks notes...studying the health behavior and wellbeing of literal children.

graph showing cumulative awards from NIH to NICHD with a very sad flat line for grants awarded in 2026

071

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 12/03/2026

actual photo of my to do list relative to my time at this point in the semester

Tupperware of Mac and cheese about 25% too overfilled to close

0273

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 03/03/2026

glad autocorrect knows i need cheerfulness in the plural, but wtf.

two text bubbles, first says "hey do you have any gaities" second says "lol. hairties"

0121

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 30/01/2026

timeline cleanse. perry wants you to know that he too looks beautiful during golden hour. #BirdSky

peregrine falcon outside my office window in the sunset golden hour staring past my office plant and into my soul

3261

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 23/01/2026

ppl often ask if I rec Baby Sign to support early language. my 1-liner is "probably doesn't do much, but it doesn't hurt" @sblldtrch.bsky.social & co new paper supports my 1-liner doi.org/10.1177/0142... [n.b. NOT the same as sign lang access for DHH kids i.e. full lg access from birth, which is A+]

abstract screenshot with last sentence highlighted:
Abstract
Baby sign programs aim to support communication between parents and preverbal infants by pairing signs with spoken words. This study addresses a notable gap in the literature by evaluating the large-scale impact of baby sign on both lexical development and caregiver behavior. Using an online questionnaire in 1348 typically developing, French hearing children (50% female) aged 10 to 28 months, 723 children exposed to baby sign at home were compared with 625 non-exposed peers. After controlling for socioeconomic status and parent–child activities, results revealed weak to no effect of baby sign on vocabulary development or caregiver behavior. These findings suggest that while baby sign is not detrimental to vocabulary development, it does not enhance spoken vocabulary as often claimed.

2112

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 08/01/2026

no they do not, thanks for coming to my tedtalk.

new york times headline that says "Dogs Build Their Vocabulaies Like Toddlers"

1394

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 26/11/2025

a little too on the nose there, door.

Revolving door with text saying “to conserve energy please use revolving door” and then a taped up laminated sign saying revolving door is permanently closed

080

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 09/10/2025

we once made a Tart Tatin(ic) #MyHeartWillGoOn yours still looks delicious!

a heap of cooked dough and peaches in nothing even close to resembling the intended tart.

120

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 25/09/2025

I hate the use of AI instead of actual thinking more than most, but the idea that NIH could reliably & definitively tell that a grant had substantial AI input is, imho, naive in all but the most BLATANT cases (hallucinated ref's, leaving prompt in text). ask all the students using it.

New NIH Policy Warns Against AI Use and Limits Applications

A new National Institutes of Health (NIH) policy (NOT-OD-25-132), effective for applications submitted to the September 25, 2025, receipt date and beyond, opens the door to research misconduct findings if an application is found to have been “substantially developed by AI” or to “contain sections substantially developed by AI,” as these are not considered to be the original ideas of the applicant. If the detection of AI is identified post award, the NIH may refer the matter to the Office of Research Integrity to determine whether there is research misconduct as well as take enforcement actions including disallowing costs, withholding future awards, wholly or in part suspending the grant, and termination.

030

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 07/07/2025

recently found myself again wondering just how predatory MDPI journals are/n't. Came across this amazing discussion/analysis from veterinary medicine. #AcademicSky avmajournals.avma.org/configurable...

screencap of following text (cuts for space) “articles published in traditional journals undergo rigorous critical review by qualified peer reviewers... & that a pub'd article has been deemed “acceptable” by peers... A previous analysis8 has demonstrated that, at least for published scientific articles, the time from submission to acceptance remained constant, w/ median of ~100 days. However, we IDed a new category of ostensibly peer-reviewed journals that review & process articles in <60 days, something that has been previously noted by other investigators.7 Furthermore, the 2 journals in this category (Animals and Veterinary Sciences, both published by MDPI) published more research articles in 2024 than any other journals except 1 (Frontiers in Veterinary Science with 1,789 articles), which had a median total time to pub of ~3 months. Indeed, the sum total of articles published by Animals and Veterinary Sciences (4,319) in 2024 exceeded the total published by the other 22 journals (excepting Frontiers in Veterinary Science) by some 100 articles. Assuming that the journals rejected approximately 50% of submitted manuscripts,9 either prior to review or after an initial review, and assuming that each article required 2 independent qualified reviewers, this would mean these 2 journals recruited approximately 17,000 reviewers in 2024 alone! Even if they accepted close to 100% of the articles submitted, this would still have required 8,600 reviewers. Given the difficulties expressed by... editors in finding qualified ...reviewers ... coupled with ... review times for most clinical vet journals ...did not change, we have to wonder what incredible strategy these 3 journals have IDed that allows such rapid, critical review. It behooves these journals to share their methods of attracting qualified critical reviewers in the diverse fields of veterinary medicine who can provide reviews within a few days of the invitation (allowing time for revisions, etc),...

140

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 05/06/2025

idk, but they're white & gold, and spell out YANNY.

screen cap of a NYT article titled "Do you see craters or bumps on the moon's surface" with a picture of the moon that can be differently interpreted as having little bumps or craters on it, depending on the inference people make about whether light is coming from above vs. below.

0181

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 20/05/2025

ooh i've had the opposite, and the main tell was they *left the prompt in the email*. It took all my adulting not to mention how much i appreciated their positive and friendly tone in my reply.

screencap from an email that says:
"Sure, here's a more positive and friendly version:

Hi Elika,
Thank you so much for following up on this"

5453

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 25/04/2025

Today we celebrated our srs & our work on the basic science of how babies learn language. Then I went to a Future of Fed Funding mtg ab how aggressive gov't interference is decimating our ability to do this work. We'll keep swimming but we'll need help #SaveOurScience #AcademicSky #NIH #NSF #Harvard

group of 17 smiling scientists in the sun

1322

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 18/04/2025

Big #BragelsonLab hooray to Nicole Calderon for successfully defending her sr. thesis! Nicole looked at word form recognition bilingual infants. Such a delight to watch her ownership & mastery over this work grow! The work will keep going beyond this milestone, thnx to nicole's push! #CogSciSky

0140

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 18/03/2025

Isn't that just like an iguana, always just steamrolling ahead with their plans, never just stopping after a mile or two. Do less iguanas, do less. 🐦🐦

screenshot from NYT of a picture of an iguana and a headline "These Iguanas Got Carried Away and Ended Up 5,000 Miles From Home"

180

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 19/02/2025

Going from <primary ed in the USSR to being a prof at Harvard is a huge leap in 2 generations. I am *so* lucky. But the part that's not luck and hard work has been federal funds, supporting the science that we do, to help us understand what helps infants learn, grow, & thrive. #AcademicSky 6/6

photos of a group of smiling lab members sitting on stairs

0150

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 26/01/2025

Ooh love this, brb ~running~ to add it to my cognition course this spring. I do have a bit of a soft spot for this illusion !

Picture of the back of a head with muller-lyer illusion shaved into the undercut

4524

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 19/12/2024

hey look, even newspaper headlines are made exponentially more clear with pictures:)

nyt headline: "a dutch baby is the best breakfast" with a photo of a cast iron pan and something looking like a doughy filled pastry situation inside)

040

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 04/12/2024

TFW you're reading a response to reviews & you can tell that the authors think that another reviewer is you, but it's not, but you can't say so because you purposely obscured whether you were you in your own review for anonymity's sake #AcademicSky #PsychSciSky

the spiderman meme where there are 3 people in spiderman suits and each is pointing at the other two

3433

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 27/11/2024

hi hi! we looked@parent report vs. home rec's to estimate first words, points, & steps. for 1st words, parents & experimenters did not differ in their estimate of when the first word happened overall but they also did not correlate; gets better with more words. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31094558/

screen grab of fig. 2 & 3 from linked article (Moore, Dailey et al, 2019, DevPsych). fig 2 shows 3 correlations, observed 1stpoint/walk/word vs. reported point/walk/1st word, correlation for point is okay-ish, for walk is very strong, and for word is ~noisy~!. fig 3 shows an increasingly precise correlation for observed vs. reported vocabulary size each month, 12-17month (it's a 6 panel graph with one set of dots & correlation/month)

120

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 22/11/2024

Timeline cleanse, happy friday from Peri #BirdSky

peregrine falcon on a dirty window ledge giving a piercing look

0311

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 15/11/2024

Wow Gmail is really misreading all my emails about ways we can expand recruitment and outreach for infant participants for our research studies #PsychSciSkt #DevPsychSky

Screen cap of spam inbox from “hard sex.43” about meeting “local babes”

3110

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 05/11/2024

not taking feedback on what the sun may or may not be setting on at this time.

sun setting over cityscape with a tiny bit of moon shimmering above

080

bergelsonlab @bergelsonlab.bsky.social · 21/10/2024

what's the profit margin for journals like T&F again? It's such critical work they do to make sure articles look ~good~, yknow? #OpenSciSky #PsychSciSky

screencap of the top of a published article from 2011 where the intro section header reads "IntroductionPlease check whether the insertion of the heading "Introduction" is correct here."

170