“This ispreliminary”Someonementionsbatcheffects“This isoutside thescope ofthe study”“Reviewer2” ismentionedFundingagencyacronym isused withoutexplanationA figure wasremade atthe lastminuteSomeonementionslack offundingA figure isdescribedas “self-explanatory”A figurelegend islonger thanthe textAnexperimentis describedas “tricky”“The dataspeak forthemselves”Coffee istreated asa researchtoolA methodsectionreferencesanother paperfor detailsA timeline isdescribedas“ambitious”A PhDstudentexplains aseniorauthor’s workSomeonesays “Intheory…”“We’ll fixit inrevision”SomeonementionsimpactfactorSomeonementionsresubmission“Thesamplesize islimited”Adeadlineis missed“Thisopensmany newquestions”SomeonementionssamplestorageissuesA controlexperimentis addedlateSomeonementionsbioinformaticstroubleshootingSomeonementionsworking onthe weekendA labmeetingruns overtimeSomeonesays “It’swell knownthat…”“Let’sdiscussthisoffline”“We don’tfullyunderstandthemechanism”SomeonementionsethicsapprovaldelaysA hypothesisis refinedafter seeingthe resultsA meetingcouldhave beenan emailA protocol isfollowed “withminormodifications”“This should bestraightforward”“We areunderpowered”A methodisdescribedas “robust”A PI says“Interesting…”“Itworkedonce”“Due to timeconstraints…”“We needmoredata”“This willstrengthenthe paper”“We had tooptimizethisextensively”A methodonly oneperson in thelabunderstandsAcollaborationis called“veryproductive”A negativeresult iscalled“interesting”Someoneapologizesfor toomany slidesA reviewerrequestsmorereferencesA reviewerasks for anunrelatedexperiment“Wealmostgave upon this”“Statisticallysignificant”isemphasizedA grant isdescribed as“competitive”Someonementions arejectedmanuscriptAdeadlineisextendedA result iscalled“unexpected”“The resultsarereproducible…mostly”SomeonereferencesSupplementaryFigure 12A statisticaltest ischosenpost hocA study isdescribedas “proofof concept”A datasetisdescribedas “messy”“This ispreliminary”Someonementionsbatcheffects“This isoutside thescope ofthe study”“Reviewer2” ismentionedFundingagencyacronym isused withoutexplanationA figure wasremade atthe lastminuteSomeonementionslack offundingA figure isdescribedas “self-explanatory”A figurelegend islonger thanthe textAnexperimentis describedas “tricky”“The dataspeak forthemselves”Coffee istreated asa researchtoolA methodsectionreferencesanother paperfor detailsA timeline isdescribedas“ambitious”A PhDstudentexplains aseniorauthor’s workSomeonesays “Intheory…”“We’ll fixit inrevision”SomeonementionsimpactfactorSomeonementionsresubmission“Thesamplesize islimited”Adeadlineis missed“Thisopensmany newquestions”SomeonementionssamplestorageissuesA controlexperimentis addedlateSomeonementionsbioinformaticstroubleshootingSomeonementionsworking onthe weekendA labmeetingruns overtimeSomeonesays “It’swell knownthat…”“Let’sdiscussthisoffline”“We don’tfullyunderstandthemechanism”SomeonementionsethicsapprovaldelaysA hypothesisis refinedafter seeingthe resultsA meetingcouldhave beenan emailA protocol isfollowed “withminormodifications”“This should bestraightforward”“We areunderpowered”A methodisdescribedas “robust”A PI says“Interesting…”“Itworkedonce”“Due to timeconstraints…”“We needmoredata”“This willstrengthenthe paper”“We had tooptimizethisextensively”A methodonly oneperson in thelabunderstandsAcollaborationis called“veryproductive”A negativeresult iscalled“interesting”Someoneapologizesfor toomany slidesA reviewerrequestsmorereferencesA reviewerasks for anunrelatedexperiment“Wealmostgave upon this”“Statisticallysignificant”isemphasizedA grant isdescribed as“competitive”Someonementions arejectedmanuscriptAdeadlineisextendedA result iscalled“unexpected”“The resultsarereproducible…mostly”SomeonereferencesSupplementaryFigure 12A statisticaltest ischosenpost hocA study isdescribedas “proofof concept”A datasetisdescribedas “messy”

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