Michael Hoffman

@michaelhoffman

Computational genomicist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. Asst Prof, Medical Biophysics and Computer Science, University of Toronto. COI:

Toronto
Vrijeme pridruživanja: svibanj 2008.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @michaelhoffman

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @michaelhoffman

  1. Prikvačeni tweet
    22. tra 2014.

    101 Questions with a Bioinformatician: This week the bioinformatician is me! Interview by .

    Poništi
  2. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    prije 11 minuta

    Routine reminder: Do not use journal-based metrics as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles, to assess an individual scientist’s contributions, or in hiring, promotion, or funding decisions. Sign DORA:

    Poništi
  3. prije 2 sata
    Poništi
  4. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    As someone who grew up in the Kansas City area, let me say this: If the Chiefs can win the Super Bowl, you can finish your dissertation.

    Poništi
  5. prije 8 sati

    Last chance! Applications and ref letters for the Amgen Scholars Canada summer undergrad research program are due 11:59p ET TONIGHT. Hope to see you in Toronto.

    Poništi
  6. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    It still just blows me away every time I re-read this Kathleen Parker column from November 4, 2016

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  7. 19/Topics in and : selected packages, programming, and updates. Includes microtype, siunitx, todonotes, xifthen, ifdraft, regexpatch, \expandafter, and \csname. by

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  8. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    2. velj

    Reading up on and the two major pieces of advice I would like to pass along are: 🙏🏼 Wash your hands 😷 Last year’s seasonal flu killed 34,200 people in the US; get your flu shot

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  9. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    Your pre-caucus reminder that the Iowa caucuses are undemocratic in process— disadvantaging folks with disabilities, family care restrictions, or employment — and unrepresentative of America. It has an underserved place of extraordinary influence in our political cycle/psyche.

    Poništi
  10. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    2. velj
    Odgovor korisnicima

    Given the high, known rates of irreproducibility from the top tier journals (betatrophin, cardiac stem cells, list goes on) published by leading professors, why worry about open access? It was corrected quickly. Much faster then if it had been Nature, Cell or Science.

    Poništi
  11. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    31. sij

    “What’s the mechanism?” can be a really ridiculous question. When a truly novel observation is made, almost by definition, the mechanism is unknown (and what qualifies as a “mechanism”?). Asking scientists to wait YEARS before sharing an exciting observation is irresponsible.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  12. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    2. velj

    I’m seeing tons of ridiculous args on how/why bioRxiv should have more stringent criteria. NO!!! That’s what peer review is for, you clowns!!! Hoffman explains it perfectly below. Btw the comments on BS preprints demonstrates the value of *both* peer review and preprints.

    Poništi
  13. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    1. velj
    Odgovor korisniku/ci
    Poništi
  14. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    1. velj

    Also, you, the reader, have to think skeptically about every peer-reviewed article that you read. 🧐

    Poništi
  15. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    1. velj
    Odgovor korisniku/ci

    I think people fail to understand is that if dubious stuff is shared via preprint & it starts getting any traction, the entire community can jump in, tear it apart and rapidly force a correction. Try that with "published in stone" journal papers reviewed by 3 anon "experts".

    Poništi
  16. 1. velj

    Recipe calls for "2 tbsp extra virgin olive or peanut oil". I would like to change things up, does anyone know where I can get extra virgin peanut oil in Toronto

    Poništi
  17. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    1. velj

    For those who are indignant at bioRxiv for the recent coronavirus/HIV preprint. I think bioRxiv worked perfectly and showed how much BETTER it can be then the current peer review system.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  18. 1. velj

    End of thread. For context, I am not just a bioRxiv reader and submitter but also one of the volunteer screeners.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  19. 1. velj

    Otherwise readers forget the disclaimers and start to depend on posted preprints getting an imagined level scrutiny that does not exist. Obvious errors make it clear that scrutiny isn't there. That you, the reader, have to think skeptically about every preprint you read.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  20. 1. velj

    It is important not only that bioRxiv warn that preprints are not checked for errors but also that readers observe that posted preprints have errors.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  21. 1. velj

    Despite these warnings plastered everywhere (including the🆕one with a big yellow highlight), some ignore the contract and argue that we should be able to depend on bioRxiv to exclude errors that are sufficiently obvious. I say no.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·