This bingo card has 60 words: “Reviewer 2” is mentioned, “We need more data”, “This should be straightforward”, A figure was remade at the last minute, Coffee is treated as a research tool, “It worked once”, A method is described as “robust”, Someone mentions impact factor, “Statistically significant” is emphasized, A negative result is called “interesting”, “We’ll fix it in revision”, A deadline is extended, A deadline is missed, Someone apologizes for too many slides, “Due to time constraints…”, Funding agency acronym is used without explanation, A collaboration is called “very productive”, “This is preliminary”, A control experiment is added late, “The sample size is limited”, Someone mentions lack of funding, A reviewer asks for an unrelated experiment, “The data speak for themselves”, An experiment is described as “tricky”, Someone says “In theory…”, A protocol is followed “with minor modifications”, “This is outside the scope of the study”, A meeting could have been an email, Someone mentions working on the weekend, A figure legend is longer than the text, A method section references another paper for details, Someone says “It’s well known that…”, A hypothesis is refined after seeing the results, A grant is described as “competitive”, Someone mentions resubmission, “We almost gave up on this”, A result is called “unexpected”, A PI says “Interesting…”, A PhD student explains a senior author’s work, A statistical test is chosen post hoc, Someone mentions sample storage issues, “We don’t fully understand the mechanism”, A figure is described as “self-explanatory”, Someone mentions bioinformatics troubleshooting, “Let’s discuss this offline”, A lab meeting runs over time, Someone mentions ethics approval delays, “This will strengthen the paper”, A dataset is described as “messy”, Someone references Supplementary Figure 12, “We had to optimize this extensively”, A reviewer requests more references, Someone mentions batch effects, “This opens many new questions”, A study is described as “proof of concept”, A method only one person in the lab understands, “We are underpowered”, A timeline is described as “ambitious”, Someone mentions a rejected manuscript and “The results are reproducible… mostly”.
Nobel dinner: Academic Bingo | Nobel Dinner | Graduate Research Conference Bingo 2025 | Research Methodology | Scientific Inquiry
Share this URL with your players:
For more control of your online game, create a clone of this card first.
Learn how to conduct a bingo game.
With players vying for a you'll have to call about __ items before someone wins. There's a __% chance that a lucky player would win after calling __ items.
Tip: If you want your game to last longer (on average), add more unique words/images to it.
