“We don’tfullyunderstandthemechanism”“Thesamplesize islimited”A methodisdescribedas “robust”“This willstrengthenthe paper”SomeonementionsimpactfactorA PI says“Interesting…”“Thisopensmany newquestions”“We’ll fixit inrevision”“Let’sdiscussthisoffline”A figurelegend islonger thanthe textCoffee istreated asa researchtoolSomeonementions arejectedmanuscriptSomeonementionsbatcheffectsSomeonementionsbioinformaticstroubleshootingA methodonly oneperson in thelabunderstandsSomeonereferencesSupplementaryFigure 12A reviewerrequestsmorereferences“Reviewer2” ismentioned“This ispreliminary”Someonesays “Intheory…”A result iscalled“unexpected”AdeadlineisextendedSomeonementionssamplestorageissuesA methodsectionreferencesanother paperfor detailsAnexperimentis describedas “tricky”Someonementionslack offundingA figure wasremade atthe lastminute“Itworkedonce”Someoneapologizesfor toomany slides“We had tooptimizethisextensively”“This should bestraightforward”A reviewerasks for anunrelatedexperimentAcollaborationis called“veryproductive”Someonesays “It’swell knownthat…”Fundingagencyacronym isused withoutexplanation“We needmoredata”A labmeetingruns overtime“The resultsarereproducible…mostly”A hypothesisis refinedafter seeingthe results“We areunderpowered”A controlexperimentis addedlateA grant isdescribed as“competitive”Someonementionsworking onthe weekendA negativeresult iscalled“interesting”A datasetisdescribedas “messy”A statisticaltest ischosenpost hocA study isdescribedas “proofof concept”SomeonementionsethicsapprovaldelaysA meetingcouldhave beenan email“This isoutside thescope ofthe study”A timeline isdescribedas“ambitious”Someonementionsresubmission“The dataspeak forthemselves”A figure isdescribedas “self-explanatory”A PhDstudentexplains aseniorauthor’s work“Statisticallysignificant”isemphasizedA protocol isfollowed “withminormodifications”“Wealmostgave upon this”Adeadlineis missed“Due to timeconstraints…”“We don’tfullyunderstandthemechanism”“Thesamplesize islimited”A methodisdescribedas “robust”“This willstrengthenthe paper”SomeonementionsimpactfactorA PI says“Interesting…”“Thisopensmany newquestions”“We’ll fixit inrevision”“Let’sdiscussthisoffline”A figurelegend islonger thanthe textCoffee istreated asa researchtoolSomeonementions arejectedmanuscriptSomeonementionsbatcheffectsSomeonementionsbioinformaticstroubleshootingA methodonly oneperson in thelabunderstandsSomeonereferencesSupplementaryFigure 12A reviewerrequestsmorereferences“Reviewer2” ismentioned“This ispreliminary”Someonesays “Intheory…”A result iscalled“unexpected”AdeadlineisextendedSomeonementionssamplestorageissuesA methodsectionreferencesanother paperfor detailsAnexperimentis describedas “tricky”Someonementionslack offundingA figure wasremade atthe lastminute“Itworkedonce”Someoneapologizesfor toomany slides“We had tooptimizethisextensively”“This should bestraightforward”A reviewerasks for anunrelatedexperimentAcollaborationis called“veryproductive”Someonesays “It’swell knownthat…”Fundingagencyacronym isused withoutexplanation“We needmoredata”A labmeetingruns overtime“The resultsarereproducible…mostly”A hypothesisis refinedafter seeingthe results“We areunderpowered”A controlexperimentis addedlateA grant isdescribed as“competitive”Someonementionsworking onthe weekendA negativeresult iscalled“interesting”A datasetisdescribedas “messy”A statisticaltest ischosenpost hocA study isdescribedas “proofof concept”SomeonementionsethicsapprovaldelaysA meetingcouldhave beenan email“This isoutside thescope ofthe study”A timeline isdescribedas“ambitious”Someonementionsresubmission“The dataspeak forthemselves”A figure isdescribedas “self-explanatory”A PhDstudentexplains aseniorauthor’s work“Statisticallysignificant”isemphasizedA protocol isfollowed “withminormodifications”“Wealmostgave upon this”Adeadlineis missed“Due to timeconstraints…”

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