Redish Lab
@adredish@neuromatch.social
mastodon
4.6.0-alpha.1+glitch
Scientist studying learning, memory, and decision-making. Poet and Playwright.
0
Followers
0
Following
Joined December 30, 2022
Lab Website:
Books:
Changing How We Choose: The New Science of Morality
Books:
The Mind within the Brain
Posts
Redish Lab
@adredish@neuromatch.social
Scientist studying learning, memory, and decision-making. Poet and Playwright.
neuromatch.social
Redish Lab
@adredish@neuromatch.social
Scientist studying learning, memory, and decision-making. Poet and Playwright.
neuromatch.social
@adredish@neuromatch.social
·
4d ago
@steveroyle @StephenCurry
In my experience, the noise in study section is at least 25% (probably closer to 50% tbh) and there is no way that a uni could make serious headway into selecting "strong" proposals over "weak" ones.
Note that the noise comes from lots of sources, but largest is small n random sample of reviewers assigned to any given proposal.
View full thread on neuromatch.social
1
0
0
Redish Lab
@adredish@neuromatch.social
Scientist studying learning, memory, and decision-making. Poet and Playwright.
neuromatch.social
Redish Lab
@adredish@neuromatch.social
Scientist studying learning, memory, and decision-making. Poet and Playwright.
neuromatch.social
@adredish@neuromatch.social
·
Apr 07, 2026
@brembs
That's interesting as I don't consider Science Advances a GlamourMag. I've always thought of ScienceAdvances as the GlamourMag Science attempting to reach down and scoop up the "higher quality workhorse journal" market.
Of course, that means that the GlamourMag mistake (interest/importance [clickbait] over validity/quality) is percolating down into the rest of the scientific literature.
View full thread on neuromatch.social
0
0
0
Redish Lab
@adredish@neuromatch.social
Scientist studying learning, memory, and decision-making. Poet and Playwright.
neuromatch.social
Redish Lab
@adredish@neuromatch.social
Scientist studying learning, memory, and decision-making. Poet and Playwright.
neuromatch.social
@adredish@neuromatch.social
·
Mar 26, 2026
@Strandjunker
Annual NIH budget $48 billion.
For comparison.
View full thread on neuromatch.social
1
0
0
Redish Lab
@adredish@neuromatch.social
Scientist studying learning, memory, and decision-making. Poet and Playwright.
neuromatch.social
Redish Lab
@adredish@neuromatch.social
Scientist studying learning, memory, and decision-making. Poet and Playwright.
neuromatch.social
@adredish@neuromatch.social
·
Mar 17, 2026
Computers didn't use to suck.
Now, everything is DRM and secured and simple things (like printing out a form!) take hours of trying things to convince the printer that it still has ink and to convince Adobe PDF that I have the right to print it (it's "secured") and then when things don't print, it's a f***ing nightmare to ensure that you haven't left an important document on some server's random f***ing hard drive. Ordering things now requires an app that wants your entire browsing history. Even getting to a website requires giving cloudflare access to your personal life.
I hate the f***ing modern computer ecosystem.
It didn't have to be this way.
24
0
9
Redish Lab
@adredish@neuromatch.social
Scientist studying learning, memory, and decision-making. Poet and Playwright.
neuromatch.social
Redish Lab
@adredish@neuromatch.social
Scientist studying learning, memory, and decision-making. Poet and Playwright.
neuromatch.social
@adredish@neuromatch.social
·
Mar 12, 2026
@alexh personally, I like having one round of anonymous reviews before I publish, but I like the I decide when to publish model. (We submit to the journal and use the first round of reviews to decide whether to preprint or not before going into the rest of the "journal fight".)
View full thread on neuromatch.social
1
0
0
Redish Lab
@adredish@neuromatch.social
Scientist studying learning, memory, and decision-making. Poet and Playwright.
neuromatch.social
Redish Lab
@adredish@neuromatch.social
Scientist studying learning, memory, and decision-making. Poet and Playwright.
neuromatch.social
@adredish@neuromatch.social
·
Feb 21, 2026
@Andrewpapale@fediscience.org @elduvelle_neuro@neuromatch.social
Yes, ADR would agree with @elduvelle_neuro@neuromatch.social 's position.
but I note that the paper DOES apply this to object locations, which is new.
The issue is that science is not an Age of Empires game. These major labs (particularly once you get a Nobel or get named to the National Academy or whatever) should be post-ambitious. They have already won the ambition game. This means that they have the freedom to take risks and just go play.
Give them credit though. They cite both the 2001 Redish et al. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11222672/ and the 2010 Dombeck/Tank https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20890294/papers. And, as I noted, they do look at CA1 representations of objects, which none of the previous work has done.
Generally, I think this paper is a good contribution to the literature.
1
0
1
Redish Lab
@adredish@neuromatch.social
Scientist studying learning, memory, and decision-making. Poet and Playwright.
neuromatch.social
Redish Lab
@adredish@neuromatch.social
Scientist studying learning, memory, and decision-making. Poet and Playwright.
neuromatch.social
@adredish@neuromatch.social
·
Nov 27, 2025
@elduvelle @albertcardona @neuralreckoning
To me this question seems to be the issue of the #eLife journal hypothesis: they are providing reviews on preprints. They are basically post-preprint review (like #PubPeer), but unlike PubPeer, they still think (at least they talk of themselves as) a journal.
I think what #eLife and #PubPeer are doing is great. But they cannot be listed in one’s CV as “refereed publications” in the way that other gatekept* journals are.
… which gets at the point @jonmsterling made about separating “preprints”, “refereed publications” and “titles I’m thinking about writing” (in preparation) on one’s CV.
It would be interesting to see how #eLife is still being treated as a “journal” on CVs and for grants and promotion.
BTW, in an earlier discussion, we agreed that one could list eLife papers in one’s CV as long as one also included the eLife assessment on one’s CV. Wanna bet these authors don’t? 🤔
- Yes, I know eLife is gatekept by editors, but the door is opened based on “interesting”, not based on “correct”. (And, yes, there is evidence that the Glam journals do that as well, but they are at least ostensibly claiming to only publish papers that are “correct”.)
4
2
0