“We don’t fully understand the mechanism” A collaboration is called “very productive” “Reviewer 2” is mentioned Someone apologizes for too many slides “This is preliminary” Someone mentions a rejected manuscript “This should be straightforward” A lab meeting runs over time A timeline is described as “ambitious” A hypothesis is refined after seeing the results A method section references another paper for details “This will strengthen the paper” Funding agency acronym is used without explanation “We are underpowered” A control experiment is added late A PhD student explains a senior author’s work Someone says “It’s well known that…” Someone mentions working on the weekend An experiment is described as “tricky” “We almost gave up on this” Someone mentions lack of funding Someone mentions sample storage issues A study is described as “proof of concept” A method is described as “robust” Someone mentions impact factor A result is called “unexpected” “The sample size is limited” “We’ll fix it in revision” A protocol is followed “with minor modifications” A negative result is called “interesting” “We had to optimize this extensively” “Statistically significant” is emphasized Coffee is treated as a research tool A dataset is described as “messy” “The data speak for themselves” Someone says “In theory…” A grant is described as “competitive” A figure legend is longer than the text A figure was remade at the last minute A deadline is extended “This is outside the scope of the study” “Let’s discuss this offline” A reviewer requests more references A meeting could have been an email Someone mentions batch effects “This opens many new questions” “The results are reproducible… mostly” A figure is described as “self- explanatory” A PI says “Interesting…” Someone references Supplementary Figure 12 A method only one person in the lab understands A deadline is missed Someone mentions bioinformatics troubleshooting Someone mentions ethics approval delays A reviewer asks for an unrelated experiment “It worked once” A statistical test is chosen post hoc “Due to time constraints…” Someone mentions resubmission “We need more data” “We don’t fully understand the mechanism” A collaboration is called “very productive” “Reviewer 2” is mentioned Someone apologizes for too many slides “This is preliminary” Someone mentions a rejected manuscript “This should be straightforward” A lab meeting runs over time A timeline is described as “ambitious” A hypothesis is refined after seeing the results A method section references another paper for details “This will strengthen the paper” Funding agency acronym is used without explanation “We are underpowered” A control experiment is added late A PhD student explains a senior author’s work Someone says “It’s well known that…” Someone mentions working on the weekend An experiment is described as “tricky” “We almost gave up on this” Someone mentions lack of funding Someone mentions sample storage issues A study is described as “proof of concept” A method is described as “robust” Someone mentions impact factor A result is called “unexpected” “The sample size is limited” “We’ll fix it in revision” A protocol is followed “with minor modifications” A negative result is called “interesting” “We had to optimize this extensively” “Statistically significant” is emphasized Coffee is treated as a research tool A dataset is described as “messy” “The data speak for themselves” Someone says “In theory…” A grant is described as “competitive” A figure legend is longer than the text A figure was remade at the last minute A deadline is extended “This is outside the scope of the study” “Let’s discuss this offline” A reviewer requests more references A meeting could have been an email Someone mentions batch effects “This opens many new questions” “The results are reproducible… mostly” A figure is described as “self- explanatory” A PI says “Interesting…” Someone references Supplementary Figure 12 A method only one person in the lab understands A deadline is missed Someone mentions bioinformatics troubleshooting Someone mentions ethics approval delays A reviewer asks for an unrelated experiment “It worked once” A statistical test is chosen post hoc “Due to time constraints…” Someone mentions resubmission “We need more data”
(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.
“We don’t fully understand the mechanism”
A collaboration is called “very productive”
“Reviewer 2” is mentioned
Someone apologizes for too many slides
“This is preliminary”
Someone mentions a rejected manuscript
“This should be straightforward”
A lab meeting runs over time
A timeline is described as “ambitious”
A hypothesis is refined after seeing the results
A method section references another paper for details
“This will strengthen the paper”
Funding agency acronym is used without explanation
“We are underpowered”
A control experiment is added late
A PhD student explains a senior author’s work
Someone says “It’s well known that…”
Someone mentions working on the weekend
An experiment is described as “tricky”
“We almost gave up on this”
Someone mentions lack of funding
Someone mentions sample storage issues
A study is described as “proof of concept”
A method is described as “robust”
Someone mentions impact factor
A result is called “unexpected”
“The sample size is limited”
“We’ll fix it in revision”
A protocol is followed “with minor modifications”
A negative result is called “interesting”
“We had to optimize this extensively”
“Statistically significant” is emphasized
Coffee is treated as a research tool
A dataset is described as “messy”
“The data speak for themselves”
Someone says “In theory…”
A grant is described as “competitive”
A figure legend is longer than the text
A figure was remade at the last minute
A deadline is extended
“This is outside the scope of the study”
“Let’s discuss this offline”
A reviewer requests more references
A meeting could have been an email
Someone mentions batch effects
“This opens many new questions”
“The results are reproducible… mostly”
A figure is described as “self-explanatory”
A PI says “Interesting…”
Someone references Supplementary Figure 12
A method only one person in the lab understands
A deadline is missed
Someone mentions bioinformatics troubleshooting
Someone mentions ethics approval delays
A reviewer asks for an unrelated experiment
“It worked once”
A statistical test is chosen post hoc
“Due to time constraints…”
Someone mentions resubmission
“We need more data”