A statisticaltest ischosenpost hoc“Thesamplesize islimited”A negativeresult iscalled“interesting”“Wealmostgave upon this”A result iscalled“unexpected”SomeonementionsimpactfactorA methodsectionreferencesanother paperfor detailsA datasetisdescribedas “messy”“We had tooptimizethisextensively”“We’ll fixit inrevision”A meetingcouldhave beenan emailSomeonesays “It’swell knownthat…”“We don’tfullyunderstandthemechanism”Fundingagencyacronym isused withoutexplanationA figure isdescribedas “self-explanatory”“Statisticallysignificant”isemphasizedA controlexperimentis addedlate“The resultsarereproducible…mostly”A methodisdescribedas “robust”“Itworkedonce”Someonementionsbatcheffects“This willstrengthenthe paper”A figurelegend islonger thanthe textSomeonementionslack offunding“Let’sdiscussthisoffline”SomeonereferencesSupplementaryFigure 12Someonesays “Intheory…”“Thisopensmany newquestions”A methodonly oneperson in thelabunderstandsSomeonementionsethicsapprovaldelaysA study isdescribedas “proofof concept”A reviewerrequestsmorereferencesSomeonementionsresubmissionAdeadlineisextended“Due to timeconstraints…”“Reviewer2” ismentionedCoffee istreated asa researchtoolA grant isdescribed as“competitive”SomeonementionsbioinformaticstroubleshootingAdeadlineis missedA timeline isdescribedas“ambitious”A figure wasremade atthe lastminute“The dataspeak forthemselves”“We areunderpowered”A protocol isfollowed “withminormodifications”Acollaborationis called“veryproductive”Someonementions arejectedmanuscript“This ispreliminary”“This should bestraightforward”SomeonementionssamplestorageissuesAnexperimentis describedas “tricky”Someoneapologizesfor toomany slides“This isoutside thescope ofthe study”A PI says“Interesting…”A PhDstudentexplains aseniorauthor’s workA reviewerasks for anunrelatedexperimentA labmeetingruns overtimeSomeonementionsworking onthe weekend“We needmoredata”A hypothesisis refinedafter seeingthe resultsA statisticaltest ischosenpost hoc“Thesamplesize islimited”A negativeresult iscalled“interesting”“Wealmostgave upon this”A result iscalled“unexpected”SomeonementionsimpactfactorA methodsectionreferencesanother paperfor detailsA datasetisdescribedas “messy”“We had tooptimizethisextensively”“We’ll fixit inrevision”A meetingcouldhave beenan emailSomeonesays “It’swell knownthat…”“We don’tfullyunderstandthemechanism”Fundingagencyacronym isused withoutexplanationA figure isdescribedas “self-explanatory”“Statisticallysignificant”isemphasizedA controlexperimentis addedlate“The resultsarereproducible…mostly”A methodisdescribedas “robust”“Itworkedonce”Someonementionsbatcheffects“This willstrengthenthe paper”A figurelegend islonger thanthe textSomeonementionslack offunding“Let’sdiscussthisoffline”SomeonereferencesSupplementaryFigure 12Someonesays “Intheory…”“Thisopensmany newquestions”A methodonly oneperson in thelabunderstandsSomeonementionsethicsapprovaldelaysA study isdescribedas “proofof concept”A reviewerrequestsmorereferencesSomeonementionsresubmissionAdeadlineisextended“Due to timeconstraints…”“Reviewer2” ismentionedCoffee istreated asa researchtoolA grant isdescribed as“competitive”SomeonementionsbioinformaticstroubleshootingAdeadlineis missedA timeline isdescribedas“ambitious”A figure wasremade atthe lastminute“The dataspeak forthemselves”“We areunderpowered”A protocol isfollowed “withminormodifications”Acollaborationis called“veryproductive”Someonementions arejectedmanuscript“This ispreliminary”“This should bestraightforward”SomeonementionssamplestorageissuesAnexperimentis describedas “tricky”Someoneapologizesfor toomany slides“This isoutside thescope ofthe study”A PI says“Interesting…”A PhDstudentexplains aseniorauthor’s workA reviewerasks for anunrelatedexperimentA labmeetingruns overtimeSomeonementionsworking onthe weekend“We needmoredata”A hypothesisis refinedafter seeingthe results

Nobel dinner: Academic Bingo - Call List

(Print) Use this randomly generated list as your call list when playing the game. There is no need to say the BINGO column name. Place some kind of mark (like an X, a checkmark, a dot, tally mark, etc) on each cell as you announce it, to keep track. You can also cut out each item, place them in a bag and pull words from the bag.


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
  1. A statistical test is chosen post hoc
  2. “The sample size is limited”
  3. A negative result is called “interesting”
  4. “We almost gave up on this”
  5. A result is called “unexpected”
  6. Someone mentions impact factor
  7. A method section references another paper for details
  8. A dataset is described as “messy”
  9. “We had to optimize this extensively”
  10. “We’ll fix it in revision”
  11. A meeting could have been an email
  12. Someone says “It’s well known that…”
  13. “We don’t fully understand the mechanism”
  14. Funding agency acronym is used without explanation
  15. A figure is described as “self-explanatory”
  16. “Statistically significant” is emphasized
  17. A control experiment is added late
  18. “The results are reproducible… mostly”
  19. A method is described as “robust”
  20. “It worked once”
  21. Someone mentions batch effects
  22. “This will strengthen the paper”
  23. A figure legend is longer than the text
  24. Someone mentions lack of funding
  25. “Let’s discuss this offline”
  26. Someone references Supplementary Figure 12
  27. Someone says “In theory…”
  28. “This opens many new questions”
  29. A method only one person in the lab understands
  30. Someone mentions ethics approval delays
  31. A study is described as “proof of concept”
  32. A reviewer requests more references
  33. Someone mentions resubmission
  34. A deadline is extended
  35. “Due to time constraints…”
  36. “Reviewer 2” is mentioned
  37. Coffee is treated as a research tool
  38. A grant is described as “competitive”
  39. Someone mentions bioinformatics troubleshooting
  40. A deadline is missed
  41. A timeline is described as “ambitious”
  42. A figure was remade at the last minute
  43. “The data speak for themselves”
  44. “We are underpowered”
  45. A protocol is followed “with minor modifications”
  46. A collaboration is called “very productive”
  47. Someone mentions a rejected manuscript
  48. “This is preliminary”
  49. “This should be straightforward”
  50. Someone mentions sample storage issues
  51. An experiment is described as “tricky”
  52. Someone apologizes for too many slides
  53. “This is outside the scope of the study”
  54. A PI says “Interesting…”
  55. A PhD student explains a senior author’s work
  56. A reviewer asks for an unrelated experiment
  57. A lab meeting runs over time
  58. Someone mentions working on the weekend
  59. “We need more data”
  60. A hypothesis is refined after seeing the results