Swisher Lab

554 posts

Swisher Lab banner
Swisher Lab

Swisher Lab

@SwisherLab

Ovarian cancer research lab. Interested in the genetics and prevention of ovarian cancer.

Seattle, WA انضم Ekim 2019
746 يتبع541 المتابعون
Swisher Lab أُعيد تغريده
AACR
AACR@AACR·
Drug Discovery, Development, and Novel Pathways: Timothy A. Yap, Sarah F. Adams, @KatherineFuh, and Jung-min Lee will address this topic in a plenary at the AACR Special Conference on Ovarian Cancer (Oct 5-7, Boston). Learn more: bit.ly/3O7oYf4 #AACRovc23 @SwisherLab
AACR tweet media
English
0
3
7
3.1K
Swisher Lab
Swisher Lab@SwisherLab·
@AnneMillsMD @Aetna So frustrating. I spend hours doing these appeals for my cancer patients, usually to no avail. My patients have literally said to me "my insurance company wants me to die" and I have no answer.
English
0
0
0
51
Anne Mills
Anne Mills@AnneMillsMD·
Currently experiencing my worst RA flare in years & still waiting for insurance to approve a new medication 14 days after my rheumatologist (who has cared for me for 10 years & knows what drug I need far better than an alleged “peer reviewer”) prescribed it. @Aetna do better.
English
17
1
47
5.6K
Swisher Lab
Swisher Lab@SwisherLab·
@SRuhle It's greed, pure and simple. A great reason to switch your interest to @LPGA.
English
0
0
0
31
Stephanie Ruhle
Stephanie Ruhle@SRuhle·
This is not an opinion - it is a question. Of the people who are justifiably upset about PGA/LIV, what percentage play/watch the sport? The deal argues the influx of capital will grow the sport & its reach. My question- at what cost?
English
893
227
2.4K
303.8K
Swisher Lab
Swisher Lab@SwisherLab·
@Andrew_Akbashev 💯 ! also, there's the nepotism inherent in unblinded review and the publication IFs of women and minority scientists are lower not because of poor science. Hanging too much on IFs in hiring and promotion contributes to discrimination and reduces diversity. Impact matters not IFs
English
0
0
1
440
Andrew Akbashev
Andrew Akbashev@Andrew_Akbashev·
Rejection of your paper or grant has NO relevance to the opinion of #research community. It is nothing but the opinion of one person. Several examples: 1. The first paper on graphene was rejected from Nature because “it did not constitute a sufficient scientific advance”. Later, it was awarded a Nobel prize. 2. The first manuscript showing the microbiome-brain connection was published after 7 submissions that took 3 years. Today, this field has exploded. I expect it will get a Nobel prize in the future. 3. Theodore Maiman tried to publish a paper describing the first operating laser in Physical Review Letters and… got a rejection! 4. Peter Ratcliffe, who worked on cells’ response to changes in oxygen levels, got his key paper rejected from Nature (see photo). Later, he was awarded a Nobel Prize for this work. And there are many other examples… . And yet I see so many young scientists stressing about rejections. For some reason, they seem to genuinely expect that the editors should know which study is truly worth it. As a result, many rejections are met with surprise and disbelief:  “How could they reject it? They publish so much trash, and yet they think our detailed 3-year-long study is not interesting to the community! WHY?” . Well, the reality is: - Most editors have very little time to delve into your study. They can easily FAIL to recognize the potential impact of your study. Proper communication in the cover letter and clear writing style can help (although only to a limited degree). - Many reviewers have little idea about the science in your paper. But they can have a big ego. So, if they have a bad day or were rejected recently, it’s easy for them to find 1000 technical reasons to reject your paper as well. - Most scientists genuinely don’t know if your discovery can make any impact. If we could predict the course of science, we would be living very differently! My message is simple: Forget about objectivity. Academia is a very subjective world. Fight for objectivity but don’t take it for granted. A great study will be found, cited and recognized. Disregard of where it’s published. A bad study requires a high-impact journal to be found and cited. But the long-time recognition might be a problem. High-IF journals are simply billboards. Their rejections do NOT represent the opinion of a scientific community. You can get rejected but don’t reject yourself! Believe in your results. #AcademicTwitter #AcademicChatter
Andrew Akbashev tweet media
English
60
1.2K
3.7K
538.5K
Swisher Lab أُعيد تغريده
Jennifer Gunter
Jennifer Gunter@DrJenGunter·
It really does not matter if a fertilized egg is a person or not. As long as I can’t force you to donate a kidney or bone marrow or part of your liver to save a life, you can’t force anyone to risk their life and health with a pregnancy. twitter.com/njbeisner/stat…
English
117
1.3K
12.3K
610.3K