I want to tell you about something new today: we’re launching the @qedScience Insight Feed!🥂 I’m excited about it and want to tell you what it does and why we built it. Part of it is that I miss Science Twitter 😌

Lab meetings can be the worst, or the best! :) Here are 22 tips for improving them (including mine) nature.com/articles/d41586-0… @Nature

It’s finally out! Together with @EMBO and @ReviewCommons, we conducted a structured side-by-side comparison of human peer review and our AI scientific review. Here’s what we did: Authors whose manuscripts had already received journal-agnostic review at Review Commons were provided with an independent AI review generated by @qedScience. The AI analysis was compared to the combined feedback of multiple human reviewers, not to a single report, and had no access to those reviews. We then asked authors how they evaluate the strengths and limitations of both approaches, and how they would actually want to use AI. The conclusion was clear: Scientists want AI feedback to strengthen their work IN ADVANCE, under their control. Not as a gatekeeper, but as a tool for constructive input. That is exactly what we are building at q.e.d! We are on the authors' side. q.e.d. is not working in isolation; we are collaborating with leading pro-scientists organizations, including EMBO (and other journals), Review Commons, and OpenRxiv (@biorxivpreprint), and are working closely with researchers across fields. At the same time, we are building an alternative model that puts agency directly in scientists’ hands. Researchers should be the ones deciding when their work is ready to be shared. We are building the infrastructure to support that. A pleasure doing this with the great Thomas Lemberger @tlemberger and Niv Samuel Mastboim @nivmast

BIG ANNOUNCEMENT📣: I haven’t been this excited to be part of something new in 15 years… Thrilled to reveal the passion project I’ve been working on for the past year and a half!🙀🥳 It started from my frustration with the depressing effect that the current publishing system has on the well-being of myself, my team, and pretty much every scientist I know (maybe you’ve noticed from my stupid jokes… :) I was exhausted of dealing with the huge delays, reviewers that can be abusive, and how arbitrary it all is. Unfortunately, the most important factors are often WHO your reviewers are and who YOU are... It’s clear we need alternatives or at least ways to improve the situation. So, together with a really special and talented team we worked to develop this idea into “qed” a platform where you can get CONSTRUCTIVE feedback on your own work or CRITICALLY assess other people’s papers. It can be a real difference maker if many of you join us (thousands have tried it already, but today we release a NEW and much stronger version ;) Let’s harness qed to put the power back in the scientists’ hands, to do, to read & to publish science on our own terms. I’m dying for you to TRY IT, and it’s very simple - just drop a paper (the link to the website is in the replies👇) - it’s completely secure, private, and free, and you get results fast. Please show your support, SHARE, tell your friends, and let’s be the revolution 🫵!

WOW!! A new pre-print rethinking how mosquitoes, the world's deadliest animal, mates. Amazing work from Leah @LeahHouri (former PhD student in my lab) conducted in @leslievosshall's lab. Huge implications! Leah found that contrary to what was previously thought, mosquito mating is a female-controlled process, and discovered a new active "lock and key" gating mechanism that controls mating. biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/…

That's dramatic (and cool): "archaea species can also form multicellular tissue–like structures when compressive forces are applied... ... These results establish multicellularity as a feature of all three domains of life"science.org/doi/10.1126/scie…