But I believe that post-publication reviews, or the suggestions that you've made, or simply transparent open reviews, which is used by many journals already, are a good way to read papers better and more efficiently. And this is a culture change that has already taken place during the last decade...

I don't think there is a way around properly reading the literature. How could we design science experiments, if the knowledge that we need for their design is somewhere in a database or LLM, but not in our heads?

Good point! But already now, everybody can contribute to post-publication peer review right now, no need for a centralized structure. I regularly write such reviews on my blog: gcamp6f.com/category/rev...
The idea is not new, see the "peeriodicals" by Romain Brette:
peeriodicals.com/peeriodicals...

If you don't learn how to write, then you don't learn how to think.

Looks like a 1:1 copy of the Cambridge Technology 8 kHz scanner. Did you notice any differences? Or have they simply licensed the technology from the existing scanner?

It's a great paper - congrats!

This objective was designed for 2P imaging. For 1P imaging, I believe that there are still some technical problems to be solved. Perhaps @voigtvision.bsky.social or @nvladimus.bsky.social can tell you more!

I'm using it mostly for 2P imaging, but it should also be relevant for expansion microscopy: Olympus XLPLN10XSVMP with NA 0.6, WD 8 mm: evidentscientific.com/en/objective...

Reflective Schmidt objectives with high NA and long WD: www.nature.com/articles/s41...
@voigtvision.bsky.social

I also wonder whether you have observed any signs of cytotoxicity or fluorophore aggregates?

This OCaMP sensor looks quite promising! Looking forward to trying it out!

Thanks, it looks very interesting!

The first comment of reviewer #1 is also "interesting", asking for the "connectome" of VIP neurons for the revised manuscript ;-)