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