(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
A PI says “Interesting…”
A statistical test is chosen post hoc
“We almost gave up on this”
A study is described as “proof of concept”
“The data speak for themselves”
A figure is described as “self-explanatory”
A lab meeting runs over time
Someone mentions batch effects
“It worked once”
Someone mentions working on the weekend
A deadline is extended
Someone says “In theory…”
A meeting could have been an email
A method is described as “robust”
“This is preliminary”
A method only one person in the lab understands
A PhD student explains a senior author’s work
Someone mentions ethics approval delays
“The sample size is limited”
Someone mentions lack of funding
“Let’s discuss this offline”
“This should be straightforward”
“We’ll fix it in revision”
A dataset is described as “messy”
A timeline is described as “ambitious”
“We don’t fully understand the mechanism”
Someone references Supplementary Figure 12
A result is called “unexpected”
Someone says “It’s well known that…”
“Due to time constraints…”
“Statistically significant” is emphasized
“This will strengthen the paper”
“The results are reproducible… mostly”
A collaboration is called “very productive”
“This opens many new questions”
A control experiment is added late
A protocol is followed “with minor modifications”
A deadline is missed
A reviewer asks for an unrelated experiment
Someone mentions impact factor
A hypothesis is refined after seeing the results
A figure was remade at the last minute
“This is outside the scope of the study”
Someone mentions sample storage issues
A reviewer requests more references
An experiment is described as “tricky”
Someone mentions resubmission
“Reviewer 2” is mentioned
Someone mentions a rejected manuscript
“We had to optimize this extensively”
Someone mentions bioinformatics troubleshooting
“We need more data”
A figure legend is longer than the text
Coffee is treated as a research tool
“We are underpowered”
Funding agency acronym is used without explanation
A method section references another paper for details
