A timeline isdescribedas“ambitious”A study isdescribedas “proofof concept”SomeonementionsethicsapprovaldelaysSomeonementions arejectedmanuscriptSomeonereferencesSupplementaryFigure 12Someonesays “Intheory…”A reviewerasks for anunrelatedexperimentAdeadlineis missedSomeonementionsimpactfactorSomeonesays “It’swell knownthat…”A figure wasremade atthe lastminuteA meetingcouldhave beenan emailSomeonementionsworking onthe weekend“This should bestraightforward”“Thisopensmany newquestions”“We had tooptimizethisextensively”“Wealmostgave upon this”A labmeetingruns overtimeA statisticaltest ischosenpost hocA figure isdescribedas “self-explanatory”“We areunderpowered”“Itworkedonce”Fundingagencyacronym isused withoutexplanationSomeoneapologizesfor toomany slidesA hypothesisis refinedafter seeingthe resultsSomeonementionsbatcheffectsCoffee istreated asa researchtoolSomeonementionslack offundingAcollaborationis called“veryproductive”“Reviewer2” ismentionedA methodisdescribedas “robust”Someonementionsbioinformaticstroubleshooting“The dataspeak forthemselves”SomeonementionsresubmissionA figurelegend islonger thanthe textAnexperimentis describedas “tricky”AdeadlineisextendedA result iscalled“unexpected”Someonementionssamplestorageissues“This willstrengthenthe paper”A datasetisdescribedas “messy”“The resultsarereproducible…mostly”A reviewerrequestsmorereferencesA PI says“Interesting…”“This ispreliminary”A methodsectionreferencesanother paperfor details“We’ll fixit inrevision”“Due to timeconstraints…”“We don’tfullyunderstandthemechanism”A protocol isfollowed “withminormodifications”“Thesamplesize islimited”A negativeresult iscalled“interesting”“Statisticallysignificant”isemphasizedA PhDstudentexplains aseniorauthor’s work“We needmoredata”A controlexperimentis addedlate“Let’sdiscussthisoffline”A methodonly oneperson in thelabunderstandsA grant isdescribed as“competitive”“This isoutside thescope ofthe study”A timeline isdescribedas“ambitious”A study isdescribedas “proofof concept”SomeonementionsethicsapprovaldelaysSomeonementions arejectedmanuscriptSomeonereferencesSupplementaryFigure 12Someonesays “Intheory…”A reviewerasks for anunrelatedexperimentAdeadlineis missedSomeonementionsimpactfactorSomeonesays “It’swell knownthat…”A figure wasremade atthe lastminuteA meetingcouldhave beenan emailSomeonementionsworking onthe weekend“This should bestraightforward”“Thisopensmany newquestions”“We had tooptimizethisextensively”“Wealmostgave upon this”A labmeetingruns overtimeA statisticaltest ischosenpost hocA figure isdescribedas “self-explanatory”“We areunderpowered”“Itworkedonce”Fundingagencyacronym isused withoutexplanationSomeoneapologizesfor toomany slidesA hypothesisis refinedafter seeingthe resultsSomeonementionsbatcheffectsCoffee istreated asa researchtoolSomeonementionslack offundingAcollaborationis called“veryproductive”“Reviewer2” ismentionedA methodisdescribedas “robust”Someonementionsbioinformaticstroubleshooting“The dataspeak forthemselves”SomeonementionsresubmissionA figurelegend islonger thanthe textAnexperimentis describedas “tricky”AdeadlineisextendedA result iscalled“unexpected”Someonementionssamplestorageissues“This willstrengthenthe paper”A datasetisdescribedas “messy”“The resultsarereproducible…mostly”A reviewerrequestsmorereferencesA PI says“Interesting…”“This ispreliminary”A methodsectionreferencesanother paperfor details“We’ll fixit inrevision”“Due to timeconstraints…”“We don’tfullyunderstandthemechanism”A protocol isfollowed “withminormodifications”“Thesamplesize islimited”A negativeresult iscalled“interesting”“Statisticallysignificant”isemphasizedA PhDstudentexplains aseniorauthor’s work“We needmoredata”A controlexperimentis addedlate“Let’sdiscussthisoffline”A methodonly oneperson in thelabunderstandsA grant isdescribed as“competitive”“This isoutside thescope ofthe study”

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