Benoît Kornmann

Note to self: don't forget to pin a thoughtful tweet in my profile...

@galosgann My interpretation of the saying is that esprit (which is very polysemic in french) must be understood as wit. And the stair is the one leading you down from the podium. The feeling that you have a good repartee, but it comes to you only after you're leaving the stage...

@BenoitKornmann "Today I learned", thanks 😀^ donmcminn.com/2022/07/lespri…

Terrible case of "esprit de l'escalier" (this is a thing, Google it). In the coach, back from defending my proposal in front of the panel, and thinking of aaaaall the perfectly good answers to their questions. Missed them all, pretty much. 😣

(just quickly back on Twitter because I promised myself to also tweet about the not-so-rosy things in the job)

Nucleotide influences client binding. What's the mechanism? Voilà. thanks for reading!

This will spark more research! The hydrophobic pocket is part of a Ca++ binding domain. What's the crosstalk? We now can surgically disrupt client-Miro interaction without affecting other functions of client or Miro. What's the significance?

🚨New preprint Alert🚨 Shared Structural Features of Miro Binding Control Mitochondrial Homeostasis biorxiv.org/content/10.110… If you want to get the gist follow the 🧵

just stumbled upon a @eLife paper. Title seemed awesome but out of my field. couldn't know if it was a paper I needed to read ASAP or if it could wait. I just read the eLife assessment and got much more info than just knowing the journal name. Get into the habit of doing that!

#ImageForensics Five panels showing cells being treated with different compounds. No overlaps expected. But .... there is one. Can you find it?

Great talk by Ben Barres Spotlight awardee @AJKowaltowski ! With seminars like this, science has no problem reaching all corners of the globe. Journals' purpose isn't dissemination anymore, but evaluation. Time to endorse this and change the way we publish. @eLife

@OdedRechavi To put it simply, recognizing the idea more than its implementation might be rewarding survivor's bias.

@OdedRechavi Well ideas are valuable but the fact is: I can have hundred (mostly bad) ideas per hour. The hard task is to sieve through the good ones, and follow them up. The students/postdocs do it by actually doing the work to test these.

My main conclusion from yesterday (kind of sad in my opinion): A significant percentage of the scientific community doesn't think ideas are a real thing that should be credited and value ideas less than hard work* *based on hundreds of replies to our commentary

@OdedRechavi @PavelTomancak @NatRevMCB '(except in the case of COI) darn...

@OdedRechavi @PavelTomancak @NatRevMCB The main problem is that a paper is for a readership, not for authorship. It's for communicating science, not recognizing your work. The reader doesn't care about who's done what (except in the car if coi). It is sufficiently complicated to understand the science!

Love it or hate it? Please share & give feedback! @PavelTomancak and I have an idea that could radically change how science papers are written so we know exactly who thought of each idea, who ran each experiment, and who analyzed the data 🧐🔥👇 nature.com/articles/s4158… @NatRevMCB

@DanielCaviedesV @OdedRechavi @PavelTomancak @NatRevMCB Yes but: -scientists are evaluated by scientists, not by institutions. -If you want to acknowledge the work of X or Y, maybe there is a way to write an actually informative author contribution section rather than complicate the text body with information useless to most readers.

@BenoitKornmann @OdedRechavi @PavelTomancak @NatRevMCB This is a fair argument, since it reminds us that the problem is more on the side of how scientists are evaluated. This authorship attribution idea assumes it may be easier to change how we write (since we actually control that) than to change how institutions evaluate us.

@OdedRechavi @PavelTomancak @NatRevMCB "Oded suggested that..." We all know that usually, the experiment was done for some other reason, but to keep the paper simple and understandable, the - originally very convoluted - story is made linear. Again, this is fine. A paper should be written for its readers.

@OdedRechavi @PavelTomancak @NatRevMCB Yes, the fact is nowadays authorship = recognition. But let's try to sever that link rather than make it more complicated. (Again, think from the reader's point of view! The paper is meant for them).