| Academic | http://www.comp-sys-bio.org |
| Photography | https://www.flickr.com/people/pedrik/ |
| GitHub | https://github.com/pmendes |
| ORCID | https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6507-9168 |
Yesterday @biorxivpreprint announced it was piloting adding Large Language Model summaries to its preprints
https://connect.biorxiv.org/news/2023/11/08/summaries
I looked at the summaries for our most recent #preprint & the results were meh. One was pretty good, one focused on a side note for the 1st half, & one included a very minor point in the summary. LLMs may have a role in this space, but if so it should be with author consent, supervision, & sign-off.
Further discussion of the announcement: https://hachyderm.io/@ethanwhite/111380087325572771
Applications are now open for our advanced course in #systemsbiology at Wellcome Trust in Hinxton. Anna Niarakis and I have developed and run this course for four years, covering all aspects of developing logical and executable models for understanding human disease, including #cancer.
This years keynotes will be Henning Hermjakob, Julio Saez Rodriguez, and Jasmin Fisher!
Deadline for applications is 14th December. Student bursaries available!
How much did the five biggest academic #publishers make in article processing charges (#APCs) 2015--2018?
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00272
"We estimate that globally authors paid $1.06 billion in publication fees to these publishers from 2015–2018."
That breaks down to $448.3m for APCs at #hybrid journals and $612.5m for APCs at full (non-hybrid) OA journals.
Here's the breakdown by publisher: Springer-Nature ($589.7m), Elsevier ($221.4m), Wiley ($114.3m), Taylor & Francis ($76.8m), Sage ($31.6m).
Abstract. This study aims to estimate the total amount of article processing charges (APCs) paid to publish open access (OA) in journals controlled by the five large commercial publishers Elsevier, Sage, Springer-Nature, Taylor & Francis and Wiley between 2015 and 2018. Using publication data from WoS, OA status from Unpaywall and annual APC prices from open datasets and historical fees retrieved via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, we estimate that globally authors paid $1.06 billion in publication fees to these publishers from 2015–2018. Revenue from gold OA amounted to $612.5 million, while $448.3 million was obtained for publishing OA in hybrid journals. Among the five publishers, Springer-Nature made the most revenue from OA ($589.7 million), followed by Elsevier ($221.4 million), Wiley ($114.3 million), Taylor & Francis ($76.8 million) and Sage ($31.6 million). With Elsevier and Wiley making most of APC revenue from hybrid fees and others focusing on gold, different OA strategies could be observed between publishers.Peer Review. https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1162/qss_a_00272
Whenever you read a negative story about renewable energy, electric vehicles or heat pumps in the media ask yourself:
Could it be that vested interest groups funded and placed the story?
Rarely exposed but this stuff goes on all the time.
https://www.desmog.com/2023/07/20/revealed-media-blitz-against-heat-pumps-funded-by-gas-lobby-group/
An energy trade association that represents and promotes gas boilers and manufacturers is behind a barrage of negative press attacking heat pumps, DeSmog has learned. Over the past two years, the Energy and Utilities Association (EUA) has paid a public affairs firm to generate hundreds of articles and interviews to lobby the UK government on […]
"We have studied a novel problem of medical knowledge poisoning, where a malicious paper is generated by large language models to poison medical knowledge graphs and further impact downstream applications."
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.11.06.565928v1
so #LLMs are also ruining #textmining applications, such as those that build #knowledgegraphs...
Peter Cohen
Ethan White
benhall
sound warrior
Alien BOB
petersuber
Jan Rosenow
David Colquhoun on Bluesky