A labmeetingruns overtimeAdeadlineisextendedA protocol isfollowed “withminormodifications”A timeline isdescribedas“ambitious”Someonementionsimpactfactor“The dataspeak forthemselves”A figurelegend islonger thanthe text“This isoutside thescope ofthe study”A controlexperimentis addedlateSomeonementionsresubmissionSomeoneapologizesfor toomany slidesA methodisdescribedas “robust”A reviewerasks for anunrelatedexperiment“Thisopensmany newquestions”A figure isdescribedas “self-explanatory”“We’ll fixit inrevision”Someonementionslack offundingFundingagencyacronym isused withoutexplanation“Thesamplesize islimited”A negativeresult iscalled“interesting”Someonesays “It’swell knownthat…”SomeonementionsbioinformaticstroubleshootingAcollaborationis called“veryproductive”A methodsectionreferencesanother paperfor detailsA statisticaltest ischosenpost hoc“We areunderpowered”Coffee istreated asa researchtoolA methodonly oneperson in thelabunderstands“We had tooptimizethisextensively”A meetingcouldhave beenan emailSomeonereferencesSupplementaryFigure 12Someonementions arejectedmanuscriptA reviewerrequestsmorereferencesSomeonementionsworking onthe weekendA datasetisdescribedas “messy”“This ispreliminary”A study isdescribedas “proofof concept”A figure wasremade atthe lastminute“Wealmostgave upon this”“Reviewer2” ismentionedAdeadlineis missed“The resultsarereproducible…mostly”“Due to timeconstraints…”Someonementionsbatcheffects“We needmoredata”Someonementionsethicsapprovaldelays“This willstrengthenthe paper”“Itworkedonce”“We don’tfullyunderstandthemechanism”“Statisticallysignificant”isemphasizedSomeonementionssamplestorageissuesA hypothesisis refinedafter seeingthe resultsA grant isdescribed as“competitive”A PhDstudentexplains aseniorauthor’s work“This should bestraightforward”“Let’sdiscussthisoffline”Anexperimentis describedas “tricky”A PI says“Interesting…”A result iscalled“unexpected”Someonesays “Intheory…”A labmeetingruns overtimeAdeadlineisextendedA protocol isfollowed “withminormodifications”A timeline isdescribedas“ambitious”Someonementionsimpactfactor“The dataspeak forthemselves”A figurelegend islonger thanthe text“This isoutside thescope ofthe study”A controlexperimentis addedlateSomeonementionsresubmissionSomeoneapologizesfor toomany slidesA methodisdescribedas “robust”A reviewerasks for anunrelatedexperiment“Thisopensmany newquestions”A figure isdescribedas “self-explanatory”“We’ll fixit inrevision”Someonementionslack offundingFundingagencyacronym isused withoutexplanation“Thesamplesize islimited”A negativeresult iscalled“interesting”Someonesays “It’swell knownthat…”SomeonementionsbioinformaticstroubleshootingAcollaborationis called“veryproductive”A methodsectionreferencesanother paperfor detailsA statisticaltest ischosenpost hoc“We areunderpowered”Coffee istreated asa researchtoolA methodonly oneperson in thelabunderstands“We had tooptimizethisextensively”A meetingcouldhave beenan emailSomeonereferencesSupplementaryFigure 12Someonementions arejectedmanuscriptA reviewerrequestsmorereferencesSomeonementionsworking onthe weekendA datasetisdescribedas “messy”“This ispreliminary”A study isdescribedas “proofof concept”A figure wasremade atthe lastminute“Wealmostgave upon this”“Reviewer2” ismentionedAdeadlineis missed“The resultsarereproducible…mostly”“Due to timeconstraints…”Someonementionsbatcheffects“We needmoredata”Someonementionsethicsapprovaldelays“This willstrengthenthe paper”“Itworkedonce”“We don’tfullyunderstandthemechanism”“Statisticallysignificant”isemphasizedSomeonementionssamplestorageissuesA hypothesisis refinedafter seeingthe resultsA grant isdescribed as“competitive”A PhDstudentexplains aseniorauthor’s work“This should bestraightforward”“Let’sdiscussthisoffline”Anexperimentis describedas “tricky”A PI says“Interesting…”A result iscalled“unexpected”Someonesays “Intheory…”

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