SomeonementionsbatcheffectsSomeonesays “It’swell knownthat…”SomeonementionsbioinformaticstroubleshootingAdeadlineisextendedA grant isdescribed as“competitive”Coffee istreated asa researchtoolSomeoneapologizesfor toomany slides“Wealmostgave upon this”A PhDstudentexplains aseniorauthor’s workA datasetisdescribedas “messy”“Statisticallysignificant”isemphasizedA meetingcouldhave beenan email“The dataspeak forthemselves”“We needmoredata”“We’ll fixit inrevision”SomeonereferencesSupplementaryFigure 12“Thisopensmany newquestions”A timeline isdescribedas“ambitious”A methodsectionreferencesanother paperfor details“We had tooptimizethisextensively”“Thesamplesize islimited”A methodonly oneperson in thelabunderstands“Let’sdiscussthisoffline”A methodisdescribedas “robust”“Itworkedonce”Someonementionslack offundingA statisticaltest ischosenpost hocSomeonementionsimpactfactorA figurelegend islonger thanthe text“We areunderpowered”Someonementionsworking onthe weekend“This isoutside thescope ofthe study”A study isdescribedas “proofof concept”SomeonementionssamplestorageissuesA figure isdescribedas “self-explanatory”Adeadlineis missedSomeonementions arejectedmanuscriptA negativeresult iscalled“interesting”“This willstrengthenthe paper”A figure wasremade atthe lastminute“Due to timeconstraints…”A reviewerrequestsmorereferencesA protocol isfollowed “withminormodifications”“The resultsarereproducible…mostly”SomeonementionsresubmissionA controlexperimentis addedlateA labmeetingruns overtimeA result iscalled“unexpected”“This should bestraightforward”Anexperimentis describedas “tricky”SomeonementionsethicsapprovaldelaysFundingagencyacronym isused withoutexplanationAcollaborationis called“veryproductive”“Reviewer2” ismentionedSomeonesays “Intheory…”“This ispreliminary”A hypothesisis refinedafter seeingthe resultsA PI says“Interesting…”A reviewerasks for anunrelatedexperiment“We don’tfullyunderstandthemechanism”SomeonementionsbatcheffectsSomeonesays “It’swell knownthat…”SomeonementionsbioinformaticstroubleshootingAdeadlineisextendedA grant isdescribed as“competitive”Coffee istreated asa researchtoolSomeoneapologizesfor toomany slides“Wealmostgave upon this”A PhDstudentexplains aseniorauthor’s workA datasetisdescribedas “messy”“Statisticallysignificant”isemphasizedA meetingcouldhave beenan email“The dataspeak forthemselves”“We needmoredata”“We’ll fixit inrevision”SomeonereferencesSupplementaryFigure 12“Thisopensmany newquestions”A timeline isdescribedas“ambitious”A methodsectionreferencesanother paperfor details“We had tooptimizethisextensively”“Thesamplesize islimited”A methodonly oneperson in thelabunderstands“Let’sdiscussthisoffline”A methodisdescribedas “robust”“Itworkedonce”Someonementionslack offundingA statisticaltest ischosenpost hocSomeonementionsimpactfactorA figurelegend islonger thanthe text“We areunderpowered”Someonementionsworking onthe weekend“This isoutside thescope ofthe study”A study isdescribedas “proofof concept”SomeonementionssamplestorageissuesA figure isdescribedas “self-explanatory”Adeadlineis missedSomeonementions arejectedmanuscriptA negativeresult iscalled“interesting”“This willstrengthenthe paper”A figure wasremade atthe lastminute“Due to timeconstraints…”A reviewerrequestsmorereferencesA protocol isfollowed “withminormodifications”“The resultsarereproducible…mostly”SomeonementionsresubmissionA controlexperimentis addedlateA labmeetingruns overtimeA result iscalled“unexpected”“This should bestraightforward”Anexperimentis describedas “tricky”SomeonementionsethicsapprovaldelaysFundingagencyacronym isused withoutexplanationAcollaborationis called“veryproductive”“Reviewer2” ismentionedSomeonesays “Intheory…”“This ispreliminary”A hypothesisis refinedafter seeingthe resultsA PI says“Interesting…”A reviewerasks for anunrelatedexperiment“We don’tfullyunderstandthemechanism”

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