So way back when in 2023 this popped up on Twitter and it cracked me up so hard. We are constantly trying to avoid reading things and thinking, and so this satirical “Impact Shade” was developed by BioRxIF (venture to twitter if you so dare) to help us easily evaluate a paper using colors:
I was thinking of this because of the q.e.d. 1% thing going on, but I won’t lie, I think about it all the time. Back before internet we had cliff notes, and people sold newsletters that summarized things and told them what was good and what it was all about. I am sure we could trace offloading of brainpower to someone else since the dawn of time.
Now with science publishing specifically, even with things like DORA, we still use various signals to determine quality (journals, authors, etc.) instead of really evaluating a work on its own merits. Cause if someone is up for tenure I would hate to actually think about what they have been doing, and instead just use number of glam journal pubs + IF + h-index + other equally flawed ideas.
Now about the 1% q.e.d. thing, it seems overblown and q.e.d. is a very useful tool (I used it on our grounding paper that will be out soon). BUT I do think people need to realize how messed up their own judgement can be and what that flawed judgement leads to, either with citations, grant awards, hiring/firing, or even shaping their own writing and thought processes. My suggestion: read things. And cause I am being honest, figure out who you can trust that is also reading things, and listen to them too. LLMs are a tool not an oracle.
Since I found the original bioRxIF post on twitter, of course bioRxIF has posted a followup to q.e.d. Pretty great (and you will also note they are listed as some sort of IF gambling site that gives scientist ImpactCoin to use to bet in the Journal Impact Factor Prediction Market… or something like this. love it.).
