The "my competitor will see my preprint and replicate/rush their story to a journal" = their competitor has to have already done at least the rate-limiting parts of the work.

To me, this is about someone wanting to receive exclusive credit for work that other groups were doing simultaneously.

Right on. Get rid of the riff raff. The humorless of today is the reply guy of tomorrow

Learn about #preprints & accelerating #OpenAccess to research in our story featuring HHMI, Gates & Astera. @hhmi-science.bsky.social, @madubs.bsky.social, @gatesfoundation.bsky.social, @openaccessmaven.bsky.social, @asterainstitute.bsky.social, @pracheeac.bsky.social sparcopen.org/impact-story...

the poor generalizability of any model output certainly is a function of the structure and redundancy of the training data but i think the greater point here is that human performance isn’t the aspirational goal

Ahahahaah it’s been a while

If you’re a PhD scientist with technical skills spanning these areas and also have project/people management experience, I’m looking for you! Apply now, or if you know someone else that would be a good fit, kindly pass along the job ad below! 👇

jobs.lever.co/arcadiascien...

😂 asked and answered

Yes absolutely. It is just post publication peer review rather than gated by it. It’s even better if the peer review is public. Funding always involves peer review as well and journal stamps are terrible proxies and inferior to more substantive vetting regardless

Must have had a typo or something but they reposted … will repost myself too