JJ
LightNews LightNews
banner
jjodx.bsky.social
JJ
@jjodx.bsky.social
760 followers 310 following 600 posts
Engineer working on motor control/motor learning/aging in the department of Movement Sciences at KU Leuven (Belgium)🧠🧠🧠
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by JJ
neural-reckoning.org
Wow! I have to say that this is where the @elife.bsky.social model really shines. Super interesting paper that makes a very strong claim. Reviewers feel interpretation goes beyond what the results show. Paper published with both sides. We all benefit much more than just a publish or reject. Bravo!
behrenstimb.bsky.social Tim Behrens @behrenstimb.bsky.social · 4h
I am really proud that eLife have published this paper. It is a very nice paper, but you need to also read the reviews to understand why! 1/n
profdata.bsky.social Bradley Love @profdata.bsky.social · 5h
"The inevitability and superfluousness of cell types in spatial cognition". Intuitive cell types are found in random artificial networks using the same selection criteria neuroscientists use with actual data. elifesciences.org/reviewed-pre... 1/2
November 25, 2025 at 9:21 PM
jjodx.bsky.social
Problem with cleaning your mailbox is that it creates a positive feedback loop by which you get many new emails...
November 25, 2025 at 3:35 PM
Reposted by JJ
neildegrassetyson.com
Every machine in a Hospital that diagnoses your body without cutting you open is based on a principle of Physics, discovered by a Physicist who had no interest in Medicine.

If you think the world doesn’t need Basic Science, or that somehow Science has failed you, think again.

#sciencematters
November 25, 2025 at 1:40 AM
Reposted by JJ
eikofried.bsky.social
70 teaspoons placed in tearooms around the institute & observed weekly over 5 months. 80% of spoons disappeared; spoon halflife~81 days. Communal room halflife lower than in specific labs. 250 spoons annually required to maintain 70 spoon population.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
The case of the disappearing teaspoons: longitudinal cohort study of the displacement of teaspoons in an Australian research institute
Objectives To determine the overall rate of loss of workplace teaspoons and whether attrition and displacement are correlated with the relative value of the teaspoons or type of tearoom. Design Longitudinal cohort study. Setting Research institute ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
November 20, 2025 at 3:44 AM
jjodx.bsky.social
Beautiful 15 years
xkcd.com/3172/
Fifteen Years
xkcd.com
November 25, 2025 at 10:45 AM
jjodx.bsky.social
Speeding up, not slowing down, decreases the metabolic energy needed to stabilize walking in the sagittal plane

journals.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1...

by @friedldegroote.bsky.social and colleagues
Speeding up, not slowing down, decreases the metabolic energy needed to stabilize walking in the sagittal plane | Journal of Applied Physiology | American Physiological Society
There is a metabolic cost associated with stabilizing walking, but it remains unclear to what extent stabilizing walking in the sagittal plane contributes to this cost. Furthermore, strategies for sta...
journals.physiology.org
November 25, 2025 at 9:49 AM
Reposted by JJ
steamtraen.eu
It's 2025 and you can still claim an effect with results like this at JAMA Psychiatry. cc @urisohn.bsky.social @lakens.bsky.social @heinonmatti.bsky.social

jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...
November 22, 2025 at 10:28 AM
jjodx.bsky.social
Researchers from the KU Leuven spent between 1.500 en 3.120k€ on APC for Nature Communications since 2015... This is the price for the Nature brand and the cost of "high" impact factor...
Couldn't that money better be invested elsewhere (and this is only one journal and one university...)
November 21, 2025 at 12:05 PM
jjodx.bsky.social
Being in a What's App group with mostly genZ people 🤔
November 19, 2025 at 4:15 PM
jjodx.bsky.social
Nice thread about why CI won't help to solve the p-value problem
statsepi.bsky.social Darren Dahly @statsepi.bsky.social · 7d
This is an education problem, not a tool problem; and we don't want people simply moving from thinking p-values are magic to thinking confidence intervals are.
elisabethbik.bsky.social Elisabeth Bik - Perpetrator 5, a fraudulent microbiologist @elisabethbik.bsky.social · 8d
Next: Geoff Cumming @thenewstats.bsky.social with 'Statistical significance and p values: The researcher’s heroin'
* p values are highly unrealiable - don't trust them, don't use them!
www.thenewstatistics.com
tiny.cc/osfsigroulette
#IRICSydney
November 19, 2025 at 9:24 AM
jjodx.bsky.social
Age-related changes spare the Locus Coeruleus
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27513978/
Locus coeruleus volume and cell population changes during Alzheimer's disease progression: A stereological study in human postmortem brains with potential implication for early-stage biomarker discovery - PubMed
The long gap between NFT accumulation and neuronal loss suggests that a second trigger may be necessary to induce neuronal death in AD. Imaging studies should determine whether LC volumetry can replicate the stage-wise atrophy observed here and how these changes are specific to AD. LC volumetry may …
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
November 18, 2025 at 3:09 PM
Reposted by JJ
dannykay68.bsky.social
EXCELLENT graphic on the drain of scientific publishing! zenodo.org/records/1759...
November 15, 2025 at 4:04 AM
Reposted by JJ
andpru.bsky.social
A new paper from the lab featuring an elegant set of experiments to explore whether and how reaction times relate to sequence planning -- stellar work by @arminpanjehpour.bsky.social. www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...
www.biorxiv.org
November 13, 2025 at 6:08 PM
jjodx.bsky.social
AGAINST THE UNCRITICAL ADOPTION OF ‘AI’
TECHNOLOGIES IN ACADEMIA
philarchive.org/archive/GUEATU
philarchive.org
November 12, 2025 at 9:16 PM
Reposted by JJ
georgetakei.bsky.social
This captures much of the frustration of today.
The image is an X post by @RealJakeBroe from 7 hours ago, featuring a two-panel comic. The top panel shows a scientist pointing to a chart with a general trend and an outlier, illustrating a rational argument. The bottom panel depicts a person labeled "ANTI VAX" pointing to a similar chart, labeling it "CONSPIRACY THEORY" with "Lies" and an outlier called "IRREFUTABLE PROOF!!!", satirizing irrational arguments. The caption reads, "It is difficult to win an argument with a smart person. It is impossible to win an argument with an idiot."
September 27, 2025 at 9:15 PM
Reposted by JJ
ardemp.bskyverified.social
I didn’t expect to show up in a political cartoon this year, but I’m grateful. @chappatte.bsky.social ’s work has always stood out for its wit and courage, and his series “USA: Those Who Resist” captures this moment perfectly. How good is your French?
November 1, 2025 at 11:59 AM
jjodx.bsky.social
Just heard that some labs prevent their PhD students to publish more than two papers during their PhD b/c they can't afford the Open Access fee. Crazy...
November 12, 2025 at 3:37 PM
Reposted by JJ
benbraun.bsky.social
The central argument in this excellent paper & thread is that the open-access turn has neglected profit; indeed, it turbo-charged publishers’ margins. As political economists who know a thing or two about profit and power we should speak up a lot more. As it says below: What we’re doing is crazy.
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 14d
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 12, 2025 at 8:30 AM
Reposted by JJ
hansonmark.bsky.social
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
jjodx.bsky.social
Being at the International Cycling Safety Conference and hearing grid cells being mentioned (by a Norwergian researcher)….
November 5, 2025 at 1:19 PM
Reposted by JJ
thecullenlab.bsky.social
Can a tiny hole in the superior canal change the way we walk? 🧠🚶 In our new study, we show that people with unilateral SCDS exhibit distinct gait kinematics—revealing canal-specific roles in mobility and pointing to new directions for vestibular rehab www.nature.com/articles/s41...
Superior canal dehiscence syndrome induces canal-specific kinematic adaptations during locomotion - Scientific Reports
Scientific Reports - Superior canal dehiscence syndrome induces canal-specific kinematic adaptations during locomotion
www.nature.com
October 3, 2025 at 5:50 PM
Reposted by JJ
carlbergstrom.com
The dark truth behind FormatMyPaper.com
Beware giving this site your unpublished data
Users noticed the website had fake testimonials and a domain name registered seemingly overnight.
https://ubadah.substack.com/p/beware-giving-this-site-your-unpublished\
October 24, 2025 at 12:11 AM
Reposted by JJ
gerardosalvato.bsky.social
The sense of ownership and agency stem from proprioception, the sensory root of self-awareness. In a group of 46 right-brain-damaged patients, the disruption of a bilateral parietal network underlies proprioceptive deficits leading to ownership disorders and anosognosia for hemiplegia.
Proprioception as a sensory root for body and motor awareness
Salvato et al. report that proprioceptive deficits predict both disturbed sensation of ownership and anosognosia for hemiplegia following right-hemisphere
doi.org
October 24, 2025 at 7:57 AM
Reposted by JJ
lenating.bsky.social
wow, I'm proud of PhD student Jake Stephens' work with Tim Cope and me on understanding multi sensory proprioceptive integration on this work.
expphysiol.bsky.social Experimental Physiology @expphysiol.bsky.social · Oct 15
🎓EDITOR'S PICK🎓
In this #ShortCommunications Stephens, @lenating.bsky.social and Cope (Emory University and Georgia Institute of Technology) question how can combinations of feedback from multiple propriosensor types signal muscle mechanical state variables for control.

📜 buff.ly/PLi6tYp
October 23, 2025 at 3:20 PM
Reposted by JJ
ithinkwellhugh.bsky.social
What your audience is thinking about at your conference presentation. Cartoon from @upmicblog. #PhDchat #ECRchat #postdoc #gradschool
October 23, 2025 at 3:30 AM