CIRCLE WITH A DOT

@craignicol @coreyspowell @dahukanna

Anyone who claims that autocorrect can drive science doesn't understand how science actually works.

@albertcardona @steveroyle

This should depend on whether the PI did any of the work. In the fields and labs where I live, the PI is *always* deeply involved in some aspect of the work.

I find the idea that the postdoc somehow does the work without the PI as incredibly weird. It does not describe any of the laboratories I see. I suppose YMMV, but I've seen a lot of labs and none of them look like that.

Papers are collaborations among authors, with (hopefully) all of the authors contributing something. In every laboratory I have seen, the PI is definitely involved at many stages of the experimental design, theoretical and conceptual structuring, and writing.

Science is a collaboration. We all have roles to play and together we make discoveries that can change the world.

@albertcardona

I work in way too many fields to publish one paper per year. I have about a dozen ongoing projects, each of which provides regular breakthroughs that need to be communicated to the scientific public.

I would actually like to see more and smaller papers published. We reward big labs publishing monster papers with a dozen experiments none of which are well enough described to replicate. I want to get back to the real science journals about nature (note the LACK of capitals at the start of those two words) in which people publish experiments, theories, or models... separately, and we can judge the literature as a literature not as a paper.