Jeffrey Koury

@jeffreykoury

45 Following

127 Followers

Linda Xie pfp

Would love any help with amplifying this. It's a huge feature for Bountycaster! :) https://x.com/ljxie/status/1809339166838145424?s=46&t=QNlz9swNdb9dxGQvZZJaCw

9 replies

11 recasts

132 reactions

Jeffrey Koury pfp

ResearchHub is looking to integrate ResearchCoin ($RSC) on Base to our platforms deposit/withdrawal flow + would love help integrating Smart Wallets & paymaster. Any open source devs out there looking to help accelerate the pace of scientific research & earn $RSC for the work please DM me 🫡 https://www.researchhub.com/

0 reply

1 recast

1 reaction

Advantage Blockchain🔵 pfp

Advantage Blockchain🔵

fresh out the laboratory, Research Hub is revolutionizing the entire open science industry @jeffreykoury & @researchhubf 🧬🧪👩‍🔬💐 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S0CvZ5krKE

0 reply

2 recasts

8 reactions

Jeffrey Koury pfp

Feels it may have too many case by case complexities. General commentary on hypothesis driven research, it does sometimes tend to drive researchers into shoehorning data to fit their narrative 🤔

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Jeffrey Koury pfp

100%. Emailing each other word docs with track changes can’t be the end state. We’re also tackling this with an organization capable lab notebook on RH, which you use to publish directly to the feed. Fractionalized NFTs for authorship feels like a good move too: % contribution = % ownership of NFT

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Jeffrey Koury pfp

ResearchHub has actually been experimenting with crowdfunding pre-registrations. Preregistrations have been shown to intrinsically improve reproducibility due to the transparency of the methodology up front. https://www.researchhub.com/funding

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Jeffrey Koury pfp

I think publishing. However, there’s a largely cultural hurdle to overcome here. Publishing in high impact journals gives you the stamp of credibility to receive more funding and move up the career ladder. Best way to fix publishing might be to also fix funding. A one two punch.

0 reply

1 recast

2 reactions

Jeffrey Koury pfp

My 2 cents is reputation (when weighted with the correct parameters) is a good way to add context. The issue now is reputation is mostly monovariate (citations). Web2 platforms actually had reputation scores, but they failed largely to their inability to be ported off each respective platform. Web3 = portable 🫡

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Jeffrey Koury pfp

The infrastructural changes these people made, and are making, to science will improve the pace of science information dissemination, and subsequently therapeutic discoveries. This is a stepwise improvement to ALL of science, but because it’s fixing the backend of science, others often get more attention.

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Jeffrey Koury pfp

Richard Sever and John Inglis for spearheading biorxiv, and Michael Eisen for the progressiveness of eLife. Just like how tax is silent theft of our money, the traditional publishing system is silent theft of our scientific time.

1 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

Jeffrey Koury pfp

Blockchains are public ledgers with intrinsic consensus mechanisms. The ideal tool for fixing publishing hidden behind paywalls with no good mechanism of finding “truth”. I joined RH Foundation 2 yrs ago because the product was being built, the team was pragmatic, and most importantly the culture was 💯

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Jeffrey Koury pfp

I’ve been entrenched in the academic infrastructure for over a decade. Big universities, small universities, basic sciences, clinical trials, grant writing, publishing etc. Lived through pain points. After my foyer into crypto in 2017, it took me embarrassingly 4 years before thinking of a similar concept to RH.

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Jeffrey Koury pfp

Actually, the lion-share of interactions have been positive. The legacy publishers are well aware of what’s going on in the DeSci space. I must say, the most resounding “👍” from traditional academic PIs/Staff has been around financially incentivized peer review

0 reply

1 recast

1 reaction

Jeffrey Koury pfp

post-cART era, HAND wasn’t progressive (can check out a longitudinal study called CHARTER). Before cART it was progressive, and so the quicker one receives treatment the better. In fact, it takes about 1-2 weeks for detectable virus to make its way into brain/CSF, so catching it before that would be the most ideal.

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Jeffrey Koury pfp

Great question. combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) can drop viral load to undetectable levels, however overall prevalence of HAND is unchanged. Albeit, we see more of the milder forms, and less of the severe forms. Can see Saylor et al 2016, Fig 2 for a nice schematic: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26965674/

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Jeffrey Koury pfp

If you’re doing science right, you should be teetering on the precipice of what is known. There’s an excitement and novelty to discovery vs implementing what is already known. Both are great, and both are needed. Delving into the unknown suits my personality a bit more.

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Jeffrey Koury pfp

Questions about @researchhubf or HIV induced neurodegenerative research? Come thru, I’ve got the answers!

0 reply

0 recast

4 reactions

Jeffrey Koury pfp

Funders, do you want anything in return for providing capital to a research project? A unique NFT/badge? Intellectual property rights? Just request the researcher to publish data/content regularly?

0 reply

1 recast

4 reactions

Jeffrey Koury pfp

3) Oligopoly of publishers/journals that rent extract (up to $12K for them to host a PDF) WITHOUT paying peer reviewers 4) Science isn’t communicated in digestible ways to lay audiences. Therapies + global health issues impact everyone, so we should not expect them to read a 26 page deeply scientific manuscript!

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Jeffrey Koury pfp

Absolutely, TL;DR The science stack is comprised of 1) funding 2) experimentation 3) publication/peer review and 4) science communication 1) Funding turnaround speeds are ~1 year from starting a grant to receiving funds 2) No great 21st century coordination/collab tools to streamline collaboration

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions