This was possible primarily thanks to Sarah, Jessika Füssel, Kelle Freel, and others, and Mike Rappé's leadership that enabled a high-resolution sampling effort that covered two full days, which I had described in greater detail here:

merenlab.org/data/hads/

Mundane? MUNDANE?

Here is an example report if you want to see what the output looks like:

anvio.org/help/main/ar...

.. and we were lucky to receive a generally positive feedback from the attendees (read more of the survey results here: anvio.org/blog/oldenbu...).

We strive to do better, come and be the judge of it yourself!

Just so you know, the previous iteration of the workshop went quite well (see more photos here: anvio.org/blog/oldenbu...)

Different disciplines have different writing styles already. I would read bullet points, I would read books. And bullet points can make art too.

Perhaps a bigger question is who holds the power to dictate how scientists write, and how they obtained that control.

That's ok though isn't it. We no longer fly the mess of a thing Wright brothers put together, but we still remember and celebrate them for transforming aviation :)

A huge service to the community! Congratulations 🎉

As good << As elegant :p

SCIE exists for lazy evaluation panels that lack the expertise to assess scientific impact themselves to 'know' what journal names to look for in people's CVs.

We need more eLifes. We need to flood this industry with creative, independent, non-profit publishing models for science.

Remember that SCIE (Science Citation Index Expanded) is owned by Clarivate, a company that sells subscription-based services.

So it shouldn't surprise anyone that mainstream science publishing treats this profit-driven corporation as the authority for what counts in research publishing.