iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Olmo van den Akker @denolmo.bsky.social · 05/06/2026

Some examples by Dvija Mehta of how AI can shake up the foundations of science

110

Olmo van den Akker @denolmo.bsky.social · 05/06/2026

Very much like the clarity of his slides

020

Olmo van den Akker @denolmo.bsky.social · 10/03/2026

On 24 April, I will speak at the @emspofficial.bsky.social conference about making studies using patient registry data more transparent. It means a lot to me because a close friend was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis just last year. Hope to learn a lot there! #EMSP2026

040

Olmo van den Akker @denolmo.bsky.social · 20/11/2025

Proposal to use more nicknames when talking about scientific researchers, the fun of which is nicely illustrated by James "cheaters' bane" Heathers in his acknowledgement slide. #AIMOS2025 @jamesheathers.bsky.social

050

Olmo van den Akker @denolmo.bsky.social · 18/11/2025

Slide by Lisa Bero on commercial funding of research. No further comment necessary, I think. #AIMOS2025

0112

Olmo van den Akker @denolmo.bsky.social · 04/09/2025

There is also a publish-review-curate publishing platform specifically dedicated to meta-research: metaror.org Send your studies on peer review there and be part of the future of science! (CoI statement: I'm an ERC representative at MetaROR) #PRC10

063

Olmo van den Akker @denolmo.bsky.social · 04/09/2025

eLife (talk by Nicola Adamson) uses a publish-review-curate method and uses common terms to assess manuscripts. For strength of evidence: exceptional, compelling, convincing, solid, incomplete, & inadequate For significance of findings: landmark, fundamental, important, valuable, & useful #PRC10

251

Olmo van den Akker @denolmo.bsky.social · 04/09/2025

New peer review dataset incoming! Involves authors, topic area, editorial decision, author characteristics (institutional prestige, region, gender), BoRE evaluations, review characteristics (length, sentiment, z-score, reviewer gender). (Talk by Aaron Clauset) #PRC10

040

Olmo van den Akker @denolmo.bsky.social · 04/09/2025

Christos Kotanidis checked differences in abstracts between submissions and published papers & assessed whether these differences indicated higher or lower research quality. Abstracts typically improved, especially in big five medical journals. Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review? #PRC10

010

Olmo van den Akker @denolmo.bsky.social · 04/09/2025

Andrea Corvillon on distributed vs. panel peer review at the ALMA Observatory: Most experienced PIs no longer have the best ranks in a distributed review system, but why that is remains unclear. #PRC10

010

Olmo van den Akker @denolmo.bsky.social · 04/09/2025

Interesting to see that the conference review process (and publishing norms) are do different in the field of computer science compared to other fields. How do these differences come about? Fundamental differences between fields or chance and inertia? #PRC10

110

Olmo van den Akker @denolmo.bsky.social · 04/09/2025

Alexander Goldberg did it by a 7-point Likert scale for overall review quality but also by assessing 4 sub-categories: reviewers' understanding of the paper, whether important elements were covered, whether reviewers substantiated their comments, and the constructiveness of reviewer comments.

000

Olmo van den Akker @denolmo.bsky.social · 04/09/2025

Di Girolamo explains why the use of the phrase "to our knowledge" lacks reproducibility and accountability. Good trigger to make an edit in a grant proposal I'm writing. #PRC10

030

Olmo van den Akker @denolmo.bsky.social · 04/09/2025

Note by Yulin Yu: Data repurposing may serve as an essential driving mechanism driving scientific innovation BUT may not always garner immediate recognition.

000

Olmo van den Akker @denolmo.bsky.social · 04/09/2025

Data repurposing: taking existing data and reusing it for a different purpose. (Presentation by Yulin Yu) Studies repurposing data are at higher risk of bias, so make sure to preregister them (check here for a template): research.tilburguniversity.edu/en/publicati... #PRC10

191

Olmo van den Akker @denolmo.bsky.social · 04/09/2025

Ian Bulovic used OpenAI's GPT to assess selective outcome reporting. Findings: - Much outcome switching but decrease over time - Industry-sponsored trials most at risk - Assessing outcome switching may seem trivial but is even hard for human coders #PRC10

100

Olmo van den Akker @denolmo.bsky.social · 04/09/2025

A meta-perspective by Malcolm Macleod on the presentations at #PRC10. Are we going for low hanging fruit too much in research on peer review / publication?

143

Olmo van den Akker @denolmo.bsky.social · 03/09/2025

Leslie McIntosh: Markers of (dis)trust in science: Pay attention to email addresses (use of hotmail.com and underscores) and institutional affiliations (new and unknown organizations without verifiable addresses) #PRC10

161

Olmo van den Akker @denolmo.bsky.social · 03/09/2025

How do paper mills operate? I always thought they were in cahoots with illegitimate journals but apparently they target normal journals as well, with the editors of those journals playing no role. (Talk by Tim Kersjes from Springer Nature) Could open review reports solve this issue? #PRC10

0105

Olmo van den Akker @denolmo.bsky.social · 03/09/2025

Findings from Mario's study: - Open reviews include more sentences, mainly involving suggestions and solutions indicating more constructive reviews - Open reviews had higher information content scores His explanation: There is more accountability in an open system #PRC10

0184

Olmo van den Akker @denolmo.bsky.social · 03/09/2025

Start of the talk by @mariomalicki.bsky.social: "Only 0.1% of journals provide some sort of open peer review" Shockingly low number for something that should be standard given that reviews are part of the scientific discourse and therefore should be public. #PRC10

120

Olmo van den Akker @denolmo.bsky.social · 03/09/2025

What do researchers use AI for? Talk by Isamme Al Fayyad on the first study from his PhD @maastrichtu.bsky.social #PRC10

000

Olmo van den Akker @denolmo.bsky.social · 01/07/2025

Hot topic at the moment: AI in peer review. Ashia Livaudais from startup SymbyAI discussed this during a session on peer review at #metascience2025 Conclusion 1: the reviews of human-AI combinations were rated higher in quality than reviews of humans or AI by themselves

353

Olmo van den Akker @denolmo.bsky.social · 01/04/2025

I'm getting the chills from this invite 🥶🥶🥶

000