Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski

Alexander Kutikov MD Verified account @uretericbud · Jun 20

Who really owns robotic surgery data?

The platform (not the surgeon) records every move in HD + telemetry, building massive AI datasets.

Surgeons create it. Patients rarely consent to its downstream use. But the platform owns the data?

We express our concerns in this @EUplatinum editorial:

authors.elsevier.com/a/1nIw014kpm4a…

@daviesbj @CanesDavid @qdtrinh @JSimhan

View quoted post on X

UroToday.com Verified account @urotoday · Mar 24, 2025

Prehabilitation: diet, sleep, and psychological preparation. Presentation by @KFKowalewski @UMM_Urology. #EAU25 written coverage by @zklaassen_md @GACancerCenter > bit.ly/4bWVgEZ @Uroweb

View quoted post on X

Alexander Studier-Fischer @AlexanderStuFi · Jul 27, 2024

Fresh off the press @SpringerNature:
Intraoperative renal perfusion can be reliably evaluated using Hyperspectral Imaging (HSI) and Machine Learning (ML). A promising approach to cover diagnostic gaps during oncological kidney surgery and kidney transplantation.

rdcu.be/dO8o8

Thanks a lot to the whole team including @beatpetemueller @lena_maierhein @doctor_felix and @KFKowalewski!
@UMM_Urology @unimedizinma @uniklinik_hd @DKFZ

nature.com/articles/s4159…

View quoted post on X

Stacy Loeb, MD @LoebStacy · Jun 7, 2024

Standing ovation for Dr Walsh at the 50th anniversary celebration, as he shares pearls from his incredible career @brady_urology @HopkinsMedicine 👏

View quoted post on X

Andrew Akbashev Verified account @Andrew_Akbashev · Nov 17, 2023

Overpublishing puts enormous stress on students and PIs.

And brings tons of money to publishers in STEM.

A new study shows that the number of papers is increasing FASTER than the number of #PhD graduates.

It’s an amazing work with very useful statistics. Huge kudos to the authors!

▫️

Main outcomes:

1️⃣ In 2022 the number of articles is 47% higher than in 2016. The amount of writing, reviewing and editing workload per scientist is increased enormously.

2️⃣ “Special issues” is a strategy for publishing lots of papers with reduced review time. This is possible due to the “publish or perish” pressure and clearly benefits the publishers.

3️⃣ The publishing time varies widely!
MDPI = 37 days. Frontiers = 72 days. Elsevier = 134 days. Springer = 157 days. Nature = 185 days.

4️⃣ The article rejection rates do not seem to correlate with publisher growth. However, rejection rates decline with increased use of special issue publishing.

5️⃣ Certain for-profit gold-open-access publishers create an increasing number of special issues, with uniquely reduced turnaround times, and in specific cases, high impact inflation and reduced rejection rates.

6️⃣ The authors suggest a new metric - Impact Inflation, which is reflected in self-citation within the same journal. For example, MDPI has a high impact inflation due to excessive self-citation compared to other publishers.

Conclusions and my opinion:

- Scientists have to spend a lot more time on reviewing and writing than before (on average).

- The more papers are published, the more the quality is compromised.

- Scientific progress has become partially bound to the business models of publishers and their revenue (a sad reality today).

- There is a huge lack of transparency. Much of these data had to be ‘web-scraped’ from numerous sources in order to get a full picture. We clearly need regulators to mandate open access to publisher’s statistics.

- Reduce the number of special issues! Those typically have low standards.

▫️

Science, publishing and funding make a trio that is very hard to disentangle.

However, research quality is controlled by the community.

This is why preprint + community review can make a big difference.

#AcademicTwitter #AcademicChatter

View quoted post on X