488 karma · joined October 13, 2009
Adding personalised highlights of topics of interest into the monthly emails is my top priority for 2026. Won't be too complicated, just have to set up the right API back-and-forths etc.
Good point about deep dives. I could do that for the topics I'm an expert in, however, by definition, I think this requires domain expertise and is therefore not scalable nor to be automated easily. I'm not sure if this fits the scope of the current project as I want people to find the papers of interest, read a quick summarization and then encourage them to read a selection of papers themselves.
As an MD, soon to have a PhD in oncology immunology, I always wonder what project Google could be working on in this area. After all they are a company and most probably try to develop products that will yield a return in the future. So why would someone chose to work for a Google firm that has no real track record in the Life Sciences versus the many life-science companies that already have amazing logistics/experience in place (Novartis, Biogen, Takeda to name just a few in Cambridge, MA). Outside "data-science" projects like genomics, or very technical project like lab-on-a-chip devices, I wouldn't see a big advantage moving to the bay area. However, I guess offering huge salaries always helps convincing people to join your company. And the winters in the Mountain View are probably warmer than the Boston area.
Fighting violence with violence will only result into more victims!
I agree with you that people that have not contributed should not be on a paper. For most high impact journals thesedays explanation is required of who did what. Of course this is far from 100% secure but it's an interesting step. Lying about the contribution of a certain co-author is something else than just adding a name to the list. Lying is fraud whereas adding a name might not actually be fraud I think.