Elise Cutts
@elisecutts
Science journalist in Austria writing for Quanta, New Scientist, Scientific American, Science, and others. Signal: emc.7243623. Get my newsletter about the forces that shape how research is done, shared, believed, and acted upon: www.reviewertoo.com
One proposal EVEN HAS THE BIRD CALLS — and the range, and the little birb footprints — on the banknotes! Don't let them put Beethoven on the money when we could have BIRBS
I ran a very simple analysis based on the calculation the team seems to have used for the 13% # for topic. And, wow: neither prestige, team size, or geography helped explain the gap! Actually, for some factors the gender gap would sometimes be ~bigger~ if women were distributed just like men. 9/n
Here's the trajectories of women authors through each stage of review grouped by topic and journal. There's a lot of variation, and Earth science even sees the share of women rise with each step. But that's an exception to the rule. 6/n
As the study pointed out, differences in the research topics men and women submit on explains some of the gap. Women submit more in the topics Science accepts most and less in the ones it accepts least. But the research team accounted for this and it explains only about 13% of the 1.1 pp gap. 5/n
This AI-infested channel makes videos about fake 🧪studies. Here's how it describes itself: "We don't do hype. We do biology, real economics, and honest results — including when things go wrong" 🙃 (Use ad-block or something if you're going to search them. Don't let them leech any more ad $$.
I do wonder if all of these researchers who want to flee to Austria know how precarious conditions for scientists are here — unless you are among the lucky few who gets a prof position. Most are on temporary contracts that can't be chained beyond 8 years at the same uni.
Can anyone explain why Google is inexplicably directing people to read an old list of papers from my newsletter from August 2025? More people are reading this thing right now than the actual post from this week 😅
US tech giants spend more on R&D than flagship public research agencies like the US NSF and EU's Framework Programmes (Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe). I feel like we could maybe afford to spend a bit more on science. Just maybe. Link to chart: www.datawrapper.de/_/Ez65M/ 🧪
Publishing has been in decline, shedding workers for a quarter century. But newspapers and magazines — the parts of this sector that journalism lives in — have been hit hardest.
This week's newsletter is going out at 17:00 CET. The headline story is not a happy one. The last 2 weeks were pretty grim for science journalism... in that time, 4 magazines announced they were being sold, shutting down, or losing their main source of funding. Consider this chart a preview:
Who is this Dr. Elise Cutts and why do I keep getting her emails? (but actually if you're going to ask me to review a paper, at least admit that you're scraping the bottom of the barrel so hard you're now hitting the pool of ex-scientists who did not even finish a PhD)
Here are the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers for journalists: Want to report facts and speak truth to power? Expect to learn 5-6x less than your colleague who writes "longform essays" for an AI company and maybe lose your job next year. This is fine.
What's everything wrong with the media environment in one sentence? Here's mine: AI company Anthropic is hiring a member of editorial staff with an annual salary of $295,000—$345,000 USD.
In times like these, you might be asking: How hot can Earth actually get? My feature touring Earth history to answer that question for @sciencenews.bsky.social last year feels, uh, timely ... and I just realized that it made the cover! Check it out to be glad you don't live in the Cretaceous. 🧪
I'm covering 5 key topics: - Metascience and innovation - Science under threat - Truth and the infosphere - AI in science - Bias, attention and vibes The newsy Monday edition (~300 word essay + links and commentary) starts next week. Next month, I'll add the meatier 2x-monthly Thursday edition.
Precarious employment is a problem for academics basically everywhere. But it seems REALLY bad in Germany and Austria. In Austria, the vast majority (~75%) of researchers are on short-term contracts — often under conditions that would be illegal for workers not employed at universities. 🧪
There are more papers being published than ever before but at the same time it increasing seems like the whole paper thing isn't working so well — I've literally never talked to a scientist ready to praise the state of publishing. (Chart by @chriscmooney.bsky.social, www.datawrapper.de/_/8Fd8M/)
I'm preparing for the re-launch of my newsletter and writing the About page has been very helpful for turning my spaghetti bowl of vague ideas into a reasonably concise description and sharpening my focus... ... it also ended up producing "vibes" as a core coverage area. Lol.
🧪 Preprint claiming the genetic code wasn't universal until after LUCA: www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6... "The 'universal' nature of the genetic code is not a simple consequence of common descent from LUCA, but also involved convergence of Bacteria and Archaea through horizontal gene transfer."
Hey Europe: AC saves lives Hey USA: Gun control saves lives Chart by @hannahritchie.bsky.social (see below)
I'm working on my slides for a social media workshop for scientists tomorrow and I feel like every other slide is some form of "you're going to waste a lot of time and energy unless you know who you want to reach and why"
If you feel sluggish and unproductive, just remember that hot spring archaea need decades to make a single copy of themselves. www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6...
The video is so cool that I won't even be offended if you just watch it and ignore my text. TLDR: scientists put a fish tank in a vacuum chamber and saw what happened. The result is a cool form of layered phyllo-like ice that could be 20 meters thick on Enceladus and a big problem for spacecraft.
Ah yes, it's just LinkedIn casually suggesting to apply to this job training a machine to replace me. Uh. I mean: Thrilled to see the incredible disruption of my field! 🚀✨ So grateful for the chance for personal growth offered by this incredible opportunity to disrupt my own career trajectory. 🙏
I mean look at this: (Chart shows % increase in goblin mentions between GPT-5.2 and GPT-5.4 broken down by "personality")
That GPT would end up ranting about goblins mostly thanks to its "Nerdy" personality 100% checks out. Fellow nerds, correct me, but I do feel like we talk about goblins more than average.