An interesting article studying convergent evolution of wing color patterns using butterflies and tiger moths! They are very distantly related but share the similar mechanism in the similar location.
“Systematics, like any discipline, cannot be judged by cross-field impact factors or citation comparisons—science is distorted when disciplines are ranked against each other instead of evaluated within their own context, just as a fast bowler cannot be measured against a spinner, yet such biases now influence funding and scientific leadership.”
1. Ellis, J. (2002) Why impact factors don’t work for taxonomy. Nature, 415, 957.
https://t.co/0JeYQVygcf
2. Impact factors aren't relevant to taxonomy Krell, F.-T. Nature 405, 507-508 (2000).
3. Taxonomy is small, but it has its citation classics Garfield, E. Nature 413, 107 (2001).
Foster et al. (2026-05 preprint, arXiv) (open access)
「Heat-tree:インタラクティブかつ埋め込み可能な系統樹の可視化・編集のためのクロスプラットフォームソフトウェア」
Heat-tree: Cross-platform software for interactive and embeddable phylogenetic tree visualization and editing
1/10 ⏰⏰ New stuff from me & @TJNear! We show that sharks themselves might not be a natural group ... it depends on what spots in the genome you analyze!
Preprint here: https://t.co/NY3HZdK798
Introducing The Structural History of Eukarya (SHE): The first proteome-scale phylogeny constructed entirely from 3D structure.
We computed 300 trillion alignments across 1,542 species to map the tree of life. 🧵👇 (1/5)
A species of lungfish found in South America has claimed the title of the animal with the biggest genome sequenced so far. https://t.co/UqVw1SQeNY #ScienceMagArchives
Releasing a new "Agentic Reviewer" for research papers. I started coding this as a weekend project, and @jyx_su made it much better.
I was inspired by a student who had a paper rejected 6 times over 3 years. Their feedback loop -- waiting ~6 months for feedback each time -- was painfully slow. We wanted to see if an agentic workflow can help researchers iterate faster.
When we trained the system on ICLR 2025 reviews and measured Spearman correlation (higher is better) on the test set:
- Correlation between two human reviewers: 0.41
- Correlation between AI and a human reviewer: 0.42
This suggests agentic reviewing is approaching human-level performance.
The agent grounds its feedback by searching arXiv, so it works best in fields like AI where research is freely published there. It’s an experimental tool, but I hope it helps you with your research.
Check it out here: https://t.co/n7ctnDilJJ
I just attended a conference this week; the 80th Korean Association of Biological Sciences (Hanyang Univ, Seoul, Korea).
The first one is my poster, and the others are presentations that interested me.
Ever wondered if earthworms are venomous? Check out our new paper to see how deep venom goes in the animal kingdom! With @EivindUndheim and @nickcasewell https://t.co/wEcsYhXIbN