Every PI

I think I’ll start posting about the lessons I’m learning as part of this new thing I’ve been doing (my attempt to change the landscape of scientific publishing and consequently how science is done) One lesson I’ve learned (and also unlearned…) is that it’s very convenient to put all the blame on journals. I’ve done it myself for years. And yes, many of the criticisms are valid. They make way too much money at our expense and are often not very good at distinguishing good science from bad science. Some of them (not all of them! There are good journals too!) bring very little value and can even slow scientific progress. They can be inefficient and biased, and journal names are a very poor substitute for quality. But the more I work on this, the harder it is for me to believe that journals are the only problem (even specifically when it comes just to publishing science). Universities are equally at fault. And I don’t just mean that we, the scientists doing the reviewing, are part of the problem (which we are, obviously). I mean the institutions we belong to, and the way they make decisions. Hiring, promotions, funding allocation - these processes are often opaque, subjective, and not particularly scientific. They are slow, inefficient, and they rely on journal brands as a shortcut. I used to think journals were driving this, but it’s obviously more like a loop. Journals could not stay the way they are if universities changed how they evaluate quality, because they would lose much of their justification to exist. But universities do not evaluate science directly, because there is too much of it and not enough experts available and time (or money to pay reviewers). So they rely on journal prestige, while journals rely on institutional reputation. Where you do your science ends up mattering more than what you discover, and this affects publication, which affects funding, which determines whether you can even pursue your ideas. This can be exploited, of course, but I don’t think institutions (or the responsible faculty/management) behave this way because they are evil or greedy. They do it because evaluating science properly is ridiculously hard and time-consuming, and the system does not reward doing it well. But the important question is can we change the way our universities work, or is it an impossible task? What I've learned working on this problem is that we can. In addition to engaging with management we can influence the system in other ways. In many cases we don’t need their approval. We are the ones who form the committees. I believe we can break the loop, if we target the mechanism of science evaluation. Journals will keep their power, shortcuts will keep dominating, and the same biases will keep reproducing themselves unless we change how we evaluate science (how we do review). If we can find ways to critically evaluate science at scale, rigorously and transparently, we can change how decisions are made.

Very proud of @Kwon_Dongil, @sachinbhag, and Stephen Ehrenzeller for putting together a new review - "Harnessing mucosal immunity for protective vaccines" published today @NatRevImmunol! Please use the link below to access this review 📖 rdcu.be/e4eEU

This has been making the rounds, and rightly so - an excellent argument to spend more time thinking, and less time generating data. Suboptimal title to sit behind a paywall though! 😅😬 nature.com/articles/s41577-0…

Too much data, too little thinking. A important essay from Ruslan Medzhitov on the importance of understanding data, not just generating it. A must read. @RMedzhitov @YaleIBIO nature.com/articles/s41577-0…

Only 3 days left to apply for a Summer Internship in the Yewdell Lab. Don't miss out on the chance to gain exposure to what a job in "industry" actually looks like, and get a leg up towards advancing your career. Apply now! roche.wd3.myworkdayjobs.com/…

The Yewdell Lab @genentech is seeking a summer intern for 2026!! An excellent opportunity to learn how we combine fundamental, basic research with drug discovery to create novel therapeutics, and to see what biotech is all about. Apply now! roche.wd3.myworkdayjobs.com/…

The OG Yewdell lab @NIH is recruiting a postdoc to study MHC class I antigen processing and presentation and/or influenza A virus immunobiology, deets below. Outstanding track record of trainees getting faculty positions Jon will play you in ping pong in lab at any time

This is how science should be: we were notified that we may have made an error; we invested time and money on investigating the error; we concluded that indeed there was an error; we let the world know. Respect for Neville and the team!

How did running your first Western Blot feel? Student:

Oliver et al do it again!

THIS IS SO COOL!!! EVERYONE who has ever written a paper needs to try this ASAP. Take your favorite paper that you have written, put it in, and I guarantee you will be blown away by the feedback.

So cool!!!!

Doing a PhD

Turns out KPop demon hunters is AWESOME!!!! #dads

Don't forget to sign up for the B cell-T cell/plasma cell Joint Keystone meeting - short talk abstracts due 11/13 - hope to see you there!

Thanks again @washupathedu for the invite to the Immunology retreat! Fun to tag team keynote w/ @LauraVella17 who primed with some awesome work on human Tfh biology, and I got to boost with some good ole GC B cell datums. Plus immunology is as cool as TS - 6yo loved the tee!