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