Oded Rechavi
@OdedRechavi
Followers
145K
Following
110K
Media
10K
Statuses
44K
Transgenerational inheritance, @qedscience https://t.co/tKNk6qiSlZ TED: https://t.co/rcOm9TSTf5 Huberman Lab Podcast: https://t.co/xZTNlx9nbi
Joined February 2016
@OdedRechavi So basically, @qedScience is doing what reviewers were supposed to do, but reviewers decided to act as arbitrators of truth, gatekeep science, and hold it hostage to their whims. They now are complaining why a set of code is doing a better job at giving feedback.
0
1
7
and if you're not using it yet... what the hell are you waiting for?
qedscience.com
Critical Thinking AI for constructive criticism and science evaluation
0
0
4
I liked this thoughtful article in Nature about q.e.dโs AI Review and our collaboration with OpenRxiv/BioRxiv Yes, AI is here to stay and we need to get ready (i'm more than ready! ๐
). One important note that was missing in this piece: we intentionally made qed an
Artificial intelligence promises rapid and polite feedback on papers โ but we must first review the reviewer, says Giorgio F. Gilestro https://t.co/Id98jPIbqn
4
5
32
The OpenReview's API leak published a day before the @ieeeICASSP reviews deadline? ICASSP is about to have the nicest reviews in history.
๐ฑOMG: "A subtle bug in OpenReviewโs API briefly exposed one of the most sensitive parts of the research process, REVIEWER ANONYMITY. Researchers discovered they could query the identities of their reviewers"
0
2
3
Just tried this for a paper claiming to quantify specificity of spatial transcriptomics platforms using negative control probes. Impressed qed identified lack of calibration w/ smFISH as a gap. Correctly cited our recent paper identifying off-target probes https://t.co/dQ9FqTNa3w
Do you do journal clubs in your lab? if you run the paper you're presenting in @qedScience (it's great for finding -problems) please let me know! I'd love to echo the discussion here, and compare your insights about the paper with q.e.d's comments #qedjournalclub
2
7
43
Interesting fact: even though our core focus is currently biological research papers, ~15% of total uploads are of clinical papers, and many upload grantsโฆ even though we havenโt officially dealt with those (yet๐). Which areas do you think we should go into next?
1
5
8
๐ฑOMG: "A subtle bug in OpenReviewโs API briefly exposed one of the most sensitive parts of the research process, REVIEWER ANONYMITY. Researchers discovered they could query the identities of their reviewers"
mgx.dev
Unpack the OpenReview ICLR 2026 data leak: a critical security incident that exposed reviewer, author, and AC identities. Understand the timeline, technical cause, and its impact on peer review in...
1
3
13
ERC applicants who made the shortlist and got invited to Brussels for an interview
1
3
76
or you can always qed it
qedscience.com
Critical Thinking AI for constructive criticism and science evaluation
0
0
4
ืืื ืืืฉ ืืืฃ ืืืชืืจื ืฉืื ืืฆื ืจืื, ืืื ืืฆื ืืขื ืืื ืืืขืชื - ืชืงืฉืืื! ืืคืขื ืืฉืืื ืืชืืืงื ืืืฆื ืืืข ืืืฆื ืขื-ืืืข (ืืืืจื ื ืขื ืืืืืื ืืืืฉื ืฉืื ืื ื ืฉืืชืฃ ืฉื ืงืจืืช @qedScience - ืืื ืืฉืคืจ ืืช ืืืงืืืื ืืืืืืืจ ืืช ืืืืฃ ืืืื ืืืืขื) @ReemSherman
geekonomy.net
ืคืจืืคืณ ืขืืื ืจืืื ืืื ืืชืืืจ ืจืืฉืื ืืืืขื ืืืื ืืืื ืณ ืชื-ืืืื ืืืฉืื ืืืกืืื ืืฉืืจ ืืืืงืืืจื ืื ืืืจืืืืืืืืื.ย ืืช ืขืืืืช ืืคืืกื ืืืงืืืจื ืฉืื ืืืฆืข ืืืื ืืืจืกืืืช ืงืืืืืืื ืื ืื ืืืจืง ืืืืื ืืื ืคืจืืคืกืืจ ืื ืืื ืืื ืืืืืงืโฆ
2
2
25
It's my second time on Geekonomy @ReemSherman. Every time, when you're there doing it, it feels as if too many ideas are being discussed and I worry the conversation is too wild, but after it's released and I listen to it, I actually think it turned out really interesting! ๐ซถ
ืืืจืืชื ืืช ืคืจืืคืณ @OdedRechavi ืืฉืืื ืขื ืืืืืืืื ืืจืื ืืืืืื ืืืืชืจ ืืขื ืื ืฉืงืืจื ืืฉืื ืกืื ืืคืจืกื ืืืฆืืื ืืจืื ืืื ืืืืืื ืื ืืื ื ืืฉืืื ืืขืืื. https://t.co/O1eVTJxmxd
0
0
9
Going to do a post doc
0
3
44
Journals are the weighted blankets of science (unclear if they help, but they definitely smother)
1
2
11