Reposts are better than no posts. Plus, plenty of people could have missed the original.

There’s some evidence for the same mechanism of action reducing PFAS:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X24003879

https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-025-01165-8

My merit review this year specifically noted my high volume of peer review for why I exceeded expectations in the 20% service part of my contract. Again I say, faculty are remunerated for peer review. It’s better to do peer review for the service part of my contract than it is to sit on faculty senate. Doing peer review helps my research. It’s a win-win, unless I don’t want to get my full merit raise because i ignored service.

Case studies are not scientific evidence, they’re well-documented anecdotes that suggest the need for scientific study.

Faculty are paid for doing peer review just like we’re paid for publishing. We’re not paid directly for each of either, but both publishing (research) and peer review (service to the field) are stipulated within our contracts. Arxiv is also free to upload to and isn’t a journal with publication fees.

Professors literally get like $0.03 per copy of a book sold. Your professors make you buy their book because no one else teaches the class like they can. It’s their expertise that you’re paying for when you go to college to study under them. They’re making sure that you have something related to that that lasts.

They’re trained on scientific writing, and we em dashes all the time in scientific writing.

Wankpuffin is actually a specific example (given within the paper) of British vulgarity considered in this study.

Even somewhere warmer, I’m a 2 year-round, too. I just have one very cool sheet that I use in the summer.

Methods sections are limited in word count, and if a lab is hoping to get a few more papers out of a paradigm, they may be intentionally terse. There’s a big difference between how we write protocols in-house and how we write limited-length methods sections.

Nothing in the Frontiers is reputable among scientists. It gets linked a lot on Reddit because it’s open access, but scientists tend to view it as essentially the not-actually-peer-reviewed equivalent of a preprint. In the past, if all reviewers recommend rejection at Frontiers, the editor would be forcibly assigned new reviewers by the publishing staff. This would continue until the manuscript would get accepted. Not sure if that’s still the same (I’ve blocked all Frontiers emails), but it’s not correct to call a Frontiers journal a major reputable journal.

The pot in my ass

While we’re on a thread about English grammar, “who’s” means “who is.” The possessive of “who” is “whose.”

Sorry.

I don’t internet without uBlock. I honestly couldn’t imagine it any other way.

ONLYOFFICE (sorry for the caps, poor name) has better docx compatibility than WPS or any other suite. It’s the only thing I’ve found that can do everything in an academic style paper without issue. In addition, its source code is open (unlike WPS) and it has Zotero and Mendeley integrations. Its Zotero integration was better than its Mendeley integration last I checked.

I’m a professor and use ONLYOFFICE as the only word processor on my office computer.

Edit: apparently the Zotero plugin needs to be updated.

Same. I still occasionally browse Reddit, but I have a rule that I don’t post or comment there. I do post and comment here.

ONLYOFFICE (sorry about the caps, poor name choice IMO) has even better docx compatibility, and its source code is open

Not sure? Maybe a moderator deleted my comment, but it’s still visible with some Lemmy clients?

I completely agree on all points.

I can’t imagine that flags will get awards automatically cancelled. Any human (f)MRI work is going to describe its participant inclusion or exclusion criteria, because you can’t put people with any risk of metal in their bodies within an MRI machine. Republicans tend to like brain research because the military really likes it. Additionally, virtually all NSF broader impacts will contain at least some speculative verbiage like, “this could help to increase representation.” My guess is that flags return an AI or actual person review, which then makes a decision. Some folks at my university have been told that their awards have been cancelled. My awards that have some of these words haven’t been cancelled.