this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2025
1469 points (99.8% liked)

Science Memes

20640 readers
1976 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Click here for our list of related resources.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

If you are here asking: "Is this a science meme?"

Probably, yes. We use the Dawkins definition of meme: a replicating idea, not just an image macro with a fact on it. A good post here doesn't need to teach you something. It needs to make you ask something: who, what, where, when, and especially why.

Science isn't a filing cabinet of facts, it's a conversation. For example, a photo of an eel or other localized wildlife counts because most people never see one, and wonder is the first step of inquiry. A car meme counts if it makes you curious about what's under the bonnet. If you want to talk about something you noticed in the world, chances are someone else wants to talk about it too.

We moderate for vibe, not category. Pruning is light, especially where a post creates interesting discussion. Experimenting is encouraged.

See the pinned paper on Shitposting as Public Pedagogy if you want the academic case for why this works.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Sal@mander.xyz
fossilesque@mander.xyz
SciBot@mander.xyz
fossilesque@lemmy.dbzer0.com
1469
Scientific Exposure (mander.xyz)
submitted 7 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
137 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

I have no clue how to improve this situation, but I appreciate this comment, especially the cited papers.

Chicken, chicken, chicken…

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

It's simple. Have a central repository similar to Axriv or BioRxiv, but one step further where a manuscript is modified after peer review. The site publishes the paper and the peer reviews (few journals publish peer reviews). Readers can then decide if the science is valid, or not. It should be supported by a consortium of countries, because the world governments currently waste $13B a year on publication fees -that's money that should be in labs doing research.

The current situation is so broken, important research can get held up for YEARS by some cunt at Harvard or Stanford who wil delay the process while his/her lab catches up. Soem of these prize winners owe their careers to "inspiration" from studies they reviewed and rejected.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

The site publishes the paper and the peer reviews (few journals publish peer reviews). Readers can then decide if the science is valid, or not.

…So like Wikipedia for papers? With the “peer review” being the discussion section?

That sounds like a great project for Wikimedia TBH. That + Arixv's nice frontend is literally the stack to do it. And they have the name recognition to draw people in.

[–] RobertoOberto@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 months ago

world governments currently waste $13B a year on publication fees -that’s money that should be in labs doing research.

And only a tiny fraction of that $13B can buy a lot of lawyers, lobbyists, and favors to make sure things don't improve.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago

It was a game changer for chicken. Still anticipated for the first Chicken Nobel Prize. Spun off three chicken companies.