I’m posting this the morning after generating a graph, and it’s already out-of-date. During the worldwide COVID-19 outbreak, preprint servers such as bioRxiv and medRxiv have again shown that they are the most effective way of communicating science rapidly. A collection of all papers on COVID-19 deposited on these two servers is available here, and it is growing daily.

I run a Masters module called MD997. Over six weeks, students have to write a grant proposal and then assess their peers’ proposals at a mock grant panel. Each student bases their proposal on a paper. They present that paper to the class and then they write their proposal using the paper as a springboard. I refreshed my paper list this year to consist of solely papers published (or posted on bioRxiv) in 2019. The previous list is here.

This is a follow up to a previous post. Despite what the title says, it is what we wanted. Our paper on dongles has just been published in Journal of Cell Science. The previous post on quantixed , explained all about the paper and the background to it. The journal featured our paper as a research highlight and they also interviewed first author, Cansu Küey.

We have a new paper out! You can access it here. The paper in a nutshell We have discovered a new class of trafficking vesicle inside cells. These vesicles are very small (30 nm across) and we’ve called them intracellular nanovesicles, or INVs for short. What is a trafficking vesicle? Humans are built from lots of cells.

A quick post this week. I write “this week” in an attempt to convince regular readers that weekly posting will continue. I noticed that J. Cell Sci. give download metrics for their papers and that these downloads are categorised into abstract, full-text and PDF. I was interested in how one of my papers performed.

There is an entertaining rumour going around about the journal Nature Communications . When I heard it for the fourth or fifth time, I decided to check out whether there is any truth in it. Sometimes it is put another way: cell biology papers drag down the impact factor of Nature Communications , or that they don’t deserve the high JIF tag of the journal because they are cited at lower rates. Could this be true?

Time for an update to a previous post. For the past few years, I have been using an automated process to track citations to my lab’s work on Google Scholar (details of how to set this up are at the end of this post). Due to the nature of how Google Scholar tracks citations, it means that citations get added (hooray!) but might be removed (booo!). Using a daily scrape of the data it is possible to watch this happening.

We have a new preprint out – it is a cautionary tale about using GFP nanobodies in cells. This short post gives a bit of background to the work. Please read the paper if you are interested in using GFP nanobodies in cells, you can find it here. Paper in a nutshell: Caution is needed when using GFP nanobodies because they can inhibit their target protein in cells.

Anyone that maintains a website is happy that people out there are interested enough to visit. Web traffic is one thing, but I take greatest pleasure in seeing quantixed posts being cited in academic papers. I love the fact that some posts on here have been cited in the literature more than some of my actual papers. It’s difficult to track citations to web resources.

I read this recent paper about very highly cited papers and science funding in the UK. The paper itself was not very good, but the dataset which underlies the paper is something to behold, as I’ll explain below. The idea behind the paper was to examine very highly cited papers in biomedicine with a connection to the UK. Have those authors been successful in getting funding from MRC, Wellcome Trust or NIHR?