Elektrine
EN
Log in Register
Paige Chat Timeline Communities Gallery Videos Email DNS VPN Uptime Kairo
Back to Timeline
Remote

Johannes

@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org
  • Open on fediscience.org

I run a small research facility at the University of Oxford where we paint thin slices of human or animal tissue with probes that tell us what each cell has been up to ( #SpatialProteomics ). Using #Microscopy and #SpatialStatistics, we then create digital maps of organs ( #DigitalPathology ) to understand how the body works, what went wrong if it doesn’t and how to fix it.
You might find me wandering through greenhouses, reminiscing about #Morrowind and avenging Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

0 Followers
0 Following
24 Posts
Joined October 31, 2022
Institution:
University of Oxford
Research:
Spatial Proteomics, Senescence, Cancer, Tumour Microenvironment
ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2833-4411

Posts

Open post
johannes_lehmann
Johannes @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org · May 11, 2026
Johannes
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org

I run a small research facility at the University of Oxford where we paint thin slices of human or animal tissue with probes that tell us what each cell has been up to ( #SpatialProteomics ). Using #Microscopy and #SpatialStatistics, we then create digital maps of organs ( #DigitalPathology ) to understand how the body works, what went wrong if it doesn’t and how to fix it. You might find me wandering through greenhouses, reminiscing about #Morrowind and avenging Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

fediscience.org
Replying to @ho@sonomu.club
@ho@sonomu.club Doctor, my great quasiditrigonary bloatoicosidodecatwister is all bloaty these days. I just want to twist again like I did last summer.
1
0
0
0
Open post
johannes_lehmann
Johannes @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org · Apr 16, 2026
Johannes
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org

I run a small research facility at the University of Oxford where we paint thin slices of human or animal tissue with probes that tell us what each cell has been up to ( #SpatialProteomics ). Using #Microscopy and #SpatialStatistics, we then create digital maps of organs ( #DigitalPathology ) to understand how the body works, what went wrong if it doesn’t and how to fix it. You might find me wandering through greenhouses, reminiscing about #Morrowind and avenging Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

fediscience.org
Replying to @lakens@mastodon.social
@lakens@mastodon.social The safest bet might be sticking quite closely to what you think is wrong with the manuscript, rather than whether the text was generated. You can then mention your suspicions in the confidential communication to the editor (if the journal has this). You don’t have to go through each individual issue, a few egregious examples might suffice, but if even that would be too much work, you might want to decline the review and refer to your suspicion in comm to the editor. I twice had manuscripts that on closer inspection had glaring issues suggesting they were pasted together rather than written (e.g., verbatim but out-of-context use of titles of papers, odd phrasings). In that case the suspicion was more paper mill than LLM, but there was a similar uncertainty - so I highlighted a few issues in the review but also asked the editor to consider whether this manuscript would meet their journal guidelines (in my case both journals had a paragraph on paper mills in their policy).
4
1
0
0
Open post
johannes_lehmann
Johannes @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org · Mar 12, 2026
Johannes
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org

I run a small research facility at the University of Oxford where we paint thin slices of human or animal tissue with probes that tell us what each cell has been up to ( #SpatialProteomics ). Using #Microscopy and #SpatialStatistics, we then create digital maps of organs ( #DigitalPathology ) to understand how the body works, what went wrong if it doesn’t and how to fix it. You might find me wandering through greenhouses, reminiscing about #Morrowind and avenging Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

fediscience.org
Replying to @MCDuncanLab@mstdn.social
@MCDuncanLab@mstdn.social In my opinion the same applies to the “headers” showing whether a slide is “introduction”, “methods” or “conclusions”. I’ve frequently seen these in student presentations - but they do not add anything and if they have a progress bar type layout the presentation feels rigid, something to be endured (“are we still at methods?”) rather than enjoyed.
0
2
0
0
Open post
johannes_lehmann
Johannes @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org · Mar 31, 2024
Johannes
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org

I run a small research facility at the University of Oxford where we paint thin slices of human or animal tissue with probes that tell us what each cell has been up to ( #SpatialProteomics ). Using #Microscopy and #SpatialStatistics, we then create digital maps of organs ( #DigitalPathology ) to understand how the body works, what went wrong if it doesn’t and how to fix it. You might find me wandering through greenhouses, reminiscing about #Morrowind and avenging Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

fediscience.org
Replying to @aj_boston@hcommons.social
@aj_boston@hcommons.social Interesting analysis, pulling different perspectives together. I agree that there are clear and immediate benefits to a preprint mandate even if publishers will still try (and likely succeed) to extract profit from the system. I’m a bit more pessimistic about “[most researchers] think of publication as a necessary distraction […] away from doing actual research”. I feel that after such long reign of “publish or perish”, publications are firmly rooted as the end goal in many minds.
1
0
0
0
Open post
johannes_lehmann
Johannes @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org · Mar 30, 2024
Johannes
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org

I run a small research facility at the University of Oxford where we paint thin slices of human or animal tissue with probes that tell us what each cell has been up to ( #SpatialProteomics ). Using #Microscopy and #SpatialStatistics, we then create digital maps of organs ( #DigitalPathology ) to understand how the body works, what went wrong if it doesn’t and how to fix it. You might find me wandering through greenhouses, reminiscing about #Morrowind and avenging Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

fediscience.org
Replying to @mike@sauropods.win
@mike@sauropods.win @brembs@mastodon.social Hehe, indeed - we’ll find out if Elsevier suddenly realises it could lower APCs. The Gates Foundation is so large (70B$) that even the publisher conglomerates pale in comparison. @mattjhodgkinson@scicomm.xyz Yes, your points are valid & should be discussed, but to quote the Gates Foundation: “New, more equitable models have not gained traction because publishers […] have pushed back when revenue is threatened”. Why wait and waste funds on Springer profits instead of mosquito nets?
1
0
0
0
Open post
johannes_lehmann
Johannes @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org · Mar 30, 2024
Johannes
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org

I run a small research facility at the University of Oxford where we paint thin slices of human or animal tissue with probes that tell us what each cell has been up to ( #SpatialProteomics ). Using #Microscopy and #SpatialStatistics, we then create digital maps of organs ( #DigitalPathology ) to understand how the body works, what went wrong if it doesn’t and how to fix it. You might find me wandering through greenhouses, reminiscing about #Morrowind and avenging Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

fediscience.org
Replying to @mike@sauropods.win

@mike@sauropods.win @plektix@mathstodon.xyz Indeed, a lot of scenarios I don’t know much about where paying for reviews would benefit science. I mentioned the caveat about my own salary because I recently heard an interview* with a palaeontologist from Argentina. Academic jobs in Argentina are so insecure and badly paid that supporting reviewers from APCs might really throw a lifeline. Even in the Netherlands the humanities are so poorly funded that supplementary incomes would help.

  • https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00885-0
1
0
1
0
Open post
johannes_lehmann
Johannes @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org · Mar 29, 2024
Johannes
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org

I run a small research facility at the University of Oxford where we paint thin slices of human or animal tissue with probes that tell us what each cell has been up to ( #SpatialProteomics ). Using #Microscopy and #SpatialStatistics, we then create digital maps of organs ( #DigitalPathology ) to understand how the body works, what went wrong if it doesn’t and how to fix it. You might find me wandering through greenhouses, reminiscing about #Morrowind and avenging Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

fediscience.org
Replying to @mike@sauropods.win
@mike@sauropods.win @plektix@mathstodon.xyz I don’t think that we should pay reviewers or part-time editors from publishing costs, I would like to see those tasks recognised as part of paid faculty positions (which of course means the time spent needs to be recognised too). But this comes from a position of privilege as research at Dutch academic hospitals pays decently. To me the ideal scenario is preprint and reviewing infrastructure run by public institutions or university libraries, akin to PubMed, BioRxiv or GEO.
0
1
0
0
Open post
johannes_lehmann
Johannes @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org · Mar 29, 2024
Johannes
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org

I run a small research facility at the University of Oxford where we paint thin slices of human or animal tissue with probes that tell us what each cell has been up to ( #SpatialProteomics ). Using #Microscopy and #SpatialStatistics, we then create digital maps of organs ( #DigitalPathology ) to understand how the body works, what went wrong if it doesn’t and how to fix it. You might find me wandering through greenhouses, reminiscing about #Morrowind and avenging Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

fediscience.org
Replying to @plektix@mathstodon.xyz

@plektix@mathstodon.xyz Peer review is useful indeed and preprints are perfectly compatible with it. The Gates Foundation repository does preprint peer review, BioRxiv has a peer review overlay* (used by eLife) and there are multiple organisations collating preprint reviews (e.g. PreReview, ReviewCommons).

I’d love to see separate, non-profit entities for curation (as PreLights does), in depth critical review (PubPeer, but friendlier) and publishing (Rxiv servers).

  • https://www.science.org/content/article/bid-boost-transparency-biorxiv-begins-posting-peer-reviews-next-preprints
1
0
0
0
Open post
johannes_lehmann
Johannes @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org · Mar 29, 2024
Johannes
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org

I run a small research facility at the University of Oxford where we paint thin slices of human or animal tissue with probes that tell us what each cell has been up to ( #SpatialProteomics ). Using #Microscopy and #SpatialStatistics, we then create digital maps of organs ( #DigitalPathology ) to understand how the body works, what went wrong if it doesn’t and how to fix it. You might find me wandering through greenhouses, reminiscing about #Morrowind and avenging Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

fediscience.org
Replying to @villavelius@mastodon.online
@villavelius@mastodon.online @mattjhodgkinson@scicomm.xyz @Luke_Drury@mastodon.dias.ie @brembs@mastodon.social Sever, Eisen and Inglis make a really good point here: mandating preprints would be an easy step funders could take immediately that would change the publishing landscape without all the financial wrangling that has slowed down more complex schemes such as Plan S. What is it with the terrible names in the academic publishing world though, as if diamond/green/whatever and cOAlition weren’t unclear and ugly enough, now we get the Plan family?
1
5
1
0
Open post
johannes_lehmann
Johannes @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org · Mar 29, 2024
Johannes
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org

I run a small research facility at the University of Oxford where we paint thin slices of human or animal tissue with probes that tell us what each cell has been up to ( #SpatialProteomics ). Using #Microscopy and #SpatialStatistics, we then create digital maps of organs ( #DigitalPathology ) to understand how the body works, what went wrong if it doesn’t and how to fix it. You might find me wandering through greenhouses, reminiscing about #Morrowind and avenging Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

fediscience.org
Replying to @mattjhodgkinson@scicomm.xyz
@mattjhodgkinson@scicomm.xyz @villavelius@mastodon.online @Luke_Drury@mastodon.dias.ie @brembs@mastodon.social What is wrong with subscription based journals? It’s that they can hold research at ransom. They cannot if the work is uploaded to a preprint repository. Not sure what the 1994 vision of self-archiving was, but you need standardisation and indexing - the Rxiv servers do that well. Journals can still offer formatting, dissemination & review for cash - and libraries can decide how much that is worth, from a much stronger negotiation position.
0
1
0
0
Open post
johannes_lehmann
Johannes @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org · Mar 29, 2024
Johannes
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org

I run a small research facility at the University of Oxford where we paint thin slices of human or animal tissue with probes that tell us what each cell has been up to ( #SpatialProteomics ). Using #Microscopy and #SpatialStatistics, we then create digital maps of organs ( #DigitalPathology ) to understand how the body works, what went wrong if it doesn’t and how to fix it. You might find me wandering through greenhouses, reminiscing about #Morrowind and avenging Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

fediscience.org
Replying to @arjen@idf.social
@arjen@idf.social Yes, indeed authors can still publish their work in a journal (if I understood the policy correctly, even in a closed, subscription-based journal) as long as they make it available as a preprint too. The Gates Foundation own repository (https://gatesopenresearch.org/) already gives an idea how preprint peer review can work (using the F1000 platform, as does the Wellcome Trust). I think eLife, which does peer review of preprints for a (lowered) APC, shows how journals could transition.
0
0
0
0
Open post
johannes_lehmann
Johannes @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org · Mar 28, 2024
Johannes
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org

I run a small research facility at the University of Oxford where we paint thin slices of human or animal tissue with probes that tell us what each cell has been up to ( #SpatialProteomics ). Using #Microscopy and #SpatialStatistics, we then create digital maps of organs ( #DigitalPathology ) to understand how the body works, what went wrong if it doesn’t and how to fix it. You might find me wandering through greenhouses, reminiscing about #Morrowind and avenging Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

fediscience.org
Replying to @Luke_Drury@mastodon.dias.ie
@Luke_Drury@mastodon.dias.ie @mattjhodgkinson@scicomm.xyz @brembs@mastodon.social You write that the Gates Foundation “add[s] their voice to the chorus”, but is there actually another funder that so far has combined preprint mandate with refusal to pay APCs? Given their leading role in publishing reform, I expect that the Wellcome Trust and Howard Hughes will follow soon, maybe Chan Zuckerberg and Wallenberg Foundation too. But did any public funders announce such plans?
1
1
1
0
Open post
johannes_lehmann
Johannes @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org · Mar 28, 2024
Johannes
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org

I run a small research facility at the University of Oxford where we paint thin slices of human or animal tissue with probes that tell us what each cell has been up to ( #SpatialProteomics ). Using #Microscopy and #SpatialStatistics, we then create digital maps of organs ( #DigitalPathology ) to understand how the body works, what went wrong if it doesn’t and how to fix it. You might find me wandering through greenhouses, reminiscing about #Morrowind and avenging Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

fediscience.org
Replying to @bleistifterin@fnordon.de
@bleistifterin@fnordon.de Pre-prints aren’t a form of review, but multiple forms of reviewing preprints already exists. The Gates Foundation own preprint repository (https://gatesopenresearch.org/browse/articles) includes peer review on preprints based on the F1000 platform, as does the one run by the Wellcome Trust. Preprint peer review can even take the form of a classic journal, e.g. eLife - but uncoupling review from publication circumnavigates many (certainly not all!) of the issues with the current publishing system.
2
0
0
0
Open post
johannes_lehmann
Johannes @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org · Mar 28, 2024
Johannes
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org

I run a small research facility at the University of Oxford where we paint thin slices of human or animal tissue with probes that tell us what each cell has been up to ( #SpatialProteomics ). Using #Microscopy and #SpatialStatistics, we then create digital maps of organs ( #DigitalPathology ) to understand how the body works, what went wrong if it doesn’t and how to fix it. You might find me wandering through greenhouses, reminiscing about #Morrowind and avenging Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

fediscience.org
Replying to @bleistifterin@fnordon.de
@bleistifterin@fnordon.de Peer review is important. But how much of the 10k APC goes to peer review - the reviewers aren’t paid after all? The Gates Foundation simply emphasises that rather than pouring their money into publisher profit margins they rather invest it into alternative forms of review. Publish or perish is a function of how competitive academia is. Preprints or diamond OA indeed don’t fix that (what does?), but at least they don’t drain funds further.
0
2
0
0
Open post
johannes_lehmann
Johannes @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org · Mar 28, 2024
Johannes
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org

I run a small research facility at the University of Oxford where we paint thin slices of human or animal tissue with probes that tell us what each cell has been up to ( #SpatialProteomics ). Using #Microscopy and #SpatialStatistics, we then create digital maps of organs ( #DigitalPathology ) to understand how the body works, what went wrong if it doesn’t and how to fix it. You might find me wandering through greenhouses, reminiscing about #Morrowind and avenging Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

fediscience.org
Replying to @hattom@mastodon.social
@hattom@mastodon.social @jedbrown@hachyderm.io @AlanSill@mast.hpc.social Journals indeed have costs, although the “publish, store, and maintain” part is that expensive as the JOSS example and pre-print servers show. BioRxiv, MedRxiv & Co. maintain thousands of manuscripts on a fairly small budget (completely carried by funders and at no cost to the authors). The Gates Foundation explicitly said that they want to invest the money they save on APCs into infrastructure (e.g. already have their own preprint server).
0
0
0
0
Open post
johannes_lehmann
Johannes @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org · Mar 28, 2024
Johannes
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org

I run a small research facility at the University of Oxford where we paint thin slices of human or animal tissue with probes that tell us what each cell has been up to ( #SpatialProteomics ). Using #Microscopy and #SpatialStatistics, we then create digital maps of organs ( #DigitalPathology ) to understand how the body works, what went wrong if it doesn’t and how to fix it. You might find me wandering through greenhouses, reminiscing about #Morrowind and avenging Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

fediscience.org
Replying to @WestCoastCliche@beige.party
@WestCoastCliche@beige.party I completely agree that editors at serious journals do not select papers based on money (although publisher policy does influence acceptance ratio) - editors or reviewers are not the problem. I think we should see preprints just as we would submitted, non-reviewed manuscripts (medRxiv only does basic vetting). Trust is still established by review, but instead of before it happens after publication - and you can decide whether you trust the reviewer based on their credentials.
1
0
0
0
Open post
johannes_lehmann
Johannes @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org · Mar 28, 2024
Johannes
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org

I run a small research facility at the University of Oxford where we paint thin slices of human or animal tissue with probes that tell us what each cell has been up to ( #SpatialProteomics ). Using #Microscopy and #SpatialStatistics, we then create digital maps of organs ( #DigitalPathology ) to understand how the body works, what went wrong if it doesn’t and how to fix it. You might find me wandering through greenhouses, reminiscing about #Morrowind and avenging Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

fediscience.org
Replying to @obviousdwest@hachyderm.io
@obviousdwest@hachyderm.io Companies that want to give their dodgy products a “science” sheen can easily do so in plenty of APC-financed open/hybrid journals that publish anything as long as you bring the cash (there subscription-based journals are indeed less incentivised). Pre-publication peer review seems like a solid stamp of approval, but it really depends on who those peers were - which the journal steers. Post-publication review isn’t immune to corruption, but at least it’s out in the open.
1
0
0
0
Open post
johannes_lehmann
Johannes @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org · Mar 28, 2024
Johannes
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org

I run a small research facility at the University of Oxford where we paint thin slices of human or animal tissue with probes that tell us what each cell has been up to ( #SpatialProteomics ). Using #Microscopy and #SpatialStatistics, we then create digital maps of organs ( #DigitalPathology ) to understand how the body works, what went wrong if it doesn’t and how to fix it. You might find me wandering through greenhouses, reminiscing about #Morrowind and avenging Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

fediscience.org
Replying to @nasamuffin@jorts.horse
@nasamuffin@jorts.horse The editors make an initial judgement call on quality/relevance and then invite reviewers for in-depth assessment. Both should and often do check for sound methodology - but you essentially have to trust the journal that that happens. While neither editors nor reviewers are in it for the cash (editors are usually volunteers or on a fixed salary, reviewers are not paid), the journal publishers can make a lot of money - which skews editorial decisions.
0
0
0
0
Open post
johannes_lehmann
Johannes @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org · Mar 27, 2024
Johannes
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org

I run a small research facility at the University of Oxford where we paint thin slices of human or animal tissue with probes that tell us what each cell has been up to ( #SpatialProteomics ). Using #Microscopy and #SpatialStatistics, we then create digital maps of organs ( #DigitalPathology ) to understand how the body works, what went wrong if it doesn’t and how to fix it. You might find me wandering through greenhouses, reminiscing about #Morrowind and avenging Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

fediscience.org
Replying to @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org
@nasamuffin@jorts.horse Of course studies also get cited directly: from court judgments and government policies to Facebook rants. A recent example are studies on abortion-inducing drugs that were cited in legal proceedings in the US. They were later retracted after researchers pointed out their (ideologically motivated) flaws. That illustrates that pre-publication peer review can fail to weed out bad work while post-publication review can be very efficient in highlighting flaws. 4/4
3
6
0
0
Open post
johannes_lehmann
Johannes @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org · Mar 27, 2024
Johannes
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org

I run a small research facility at the University of Oxford where we paint thin slices of human or animal tissue with probes that tell us what each cell has been up to ( #SpatialProteomics ). Using #Microscopy and #SpatialStatistics, we then create digital maps of organs ( #DigitalPathology ) to understand how the body works, what went wrong if it doesn’t and how to fix it. You might find me wandering through greenhouses, reminiscing about #Morrowind and avenging Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

fediscience.org
Replying to @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org
@nasamuffin@jorts.horse Post-publication peer review is public (often implemented as “comment” boxes) and can help judge work. Currently most journals do not make pre-publication reviews public, so they don’t help all that much assessing a publications individual findings. Studies that are read by a lay audience usually get there via journalists. Good press coverage of research already includes external opinions (the “not involved in the study” professors often quoted) - that too is public peer review. 3/4
0
1
0
0
Open post
johannes_lehmann
Johannes @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org · Mar 27, 2024
Johannes
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org

I run a small research facility at the University of Oxford where we paint thin slices of human or animal tissue with probes that tell us what each cell has been up to ( #SpatialProteomics ). Using #Microscopy and #SpatialStatistics, we then create digital maps of organs ( #DigitalPathology ) to understand how the body works, what went wrong if it doesn’t and how to fix it. You might find me wandering through greenhouses, reminiscing about #Morrowind and avenging Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

fediscience.org
Replying to @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org
@nasamuffin@jorts.horse What would replace pre-publication peer review is depends on the audience. At least in biomedical research, I would estimate that >95% of publications are only read by other scientists, which can assess findings from their field of expertise while they read them (they are the peers in peer review after all). Of course not all findings are within one’s field of expertise, which is where post-publication peer review comes in. 2/4
1
8
0
0
Open post
johannes_lehmann
Johannes @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org · Mar 27, 2024
Johannes
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org

I run a small research facility at the University of Oxford where we paint thin slices of human or animal tissue with probes that tell us what each cell has been up to ( #SpatialProteomics ). Using #Microscopy and #SpatialStatistics, we then create digital maps of organs ( #DigitalPathology ) to understand how the body works, what went wrong if it doesn’t and how to fix it. You might find me wandering through greenhouses, reminiscing about #Morrowind and avenging Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

fediscience.org
Replying to @nasamuffin@jorts.horse
@nasamuffin@jorts.horse After publication (if at all), then often as public comments. As preprint volume in the (bio)medical sciences increased in the last years studies comparing preprints and the journal-published version of the work have shown that preprints aren’t necessarily of poorer quality than peer-reviewed studies and that post-publication reviews can work well. 1/4
2
9
0
0
Open post
johannes_lehmann
Johannes @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org · Mar 27, 2024
Johannes
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org

I run a small research facility at the University of Oxford where we paint thin slices of human or animal tissue with probes that tell us what each cell has been up to ( #SpatialProteomics ). Using #Microscopy and #SpatialStatistics, we then create digital maps of organs ( #DigitalPathology ) to understand how the body works, what went wrong if it doesn’t and how to fix it. You might find me wandering through greenhouses, reminiscing about #Morrowind and avenging Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

fediscience.org

One of the largest science funders, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, will cease paying journal “article processing charges” and instead asks funded researchers to publish their work as preprints. This is fantastic. The costs of the current publishing system drain research funds and exclude too many scientists solely due to financial constraints. Funders are in a much better position to rock the “publishing” boat than researchers.
https://gatesfoundationoa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/24810787662100-Policy-Refresh-2025-Overview

#academia #OpenScience #research

182
24
166
0
Open post
johannes_lehmann
Johannes @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org · Sep 27, 2023
Johannes
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org

I run a small research facility at the University of Oxford where we paint thin slices of human or animal tissue with probes that tell us what each cell has been up to ( #SpatialProteomics ). Using #Microscopy and #SpatialStatistics, we then create digital maps of organs ( #DigitalPathology ) to understand how the body works, what went wrong if it doesn’t and how to fix it. You might find me wandering through greenhouses, reminiscing about #Morrowind and avenging Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

fediscience.org
Replying to @jamesheathers@techhub.social
@jamesheathers (A) It’s rather a dataset repository with a simple search engine, but NCBI’s GEO (gene expression omnibus, weird name) and the linked BioProject archive are my go-to places for genomic data sets (mostly gene expression). Like many other NCBI search engines the user interface won’t win prices for beauty or simplicity, but it works great and the indexing system (accession number etc.) is well thought through and enforced. (B) Biomedicine/Cancer
2
0
0
0

Remote instance

fediscience.org
Open on original server
313k7r1n3
Elektrine

Tor hidden service

elekhj7afj4qnrr4yd3bkzslsyo5jgfxw3orgjkhlcxifueodybyiiad.onion

Platform

  • Email
  • Chat
  • Timeline
  • Communities
  • VPN
  • DNS

Company

  • About
  • Contact
  • FAQ

Legal

  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy
  • Warrant Canary
  • Lite (no JS)
  • VPN Policy
  • Source code

Support

  • support@elektrine.com
  • Report Security Issue
Mail client setup IMAP mail.elektrine.com:993 POP3 mail.elektrine.com:995 SMTP mail.elektrine.com:465
© 2026 Elektrine. All rights reserved. Server: 21:59:16 UTC