PaquitoBernard, to academicchatter avatar


You are not serious. I received this email (12 days after the expected deadline).

It was the 2nd assessment of this manuscript.

#plos1 @academicchatter
#peerreview #academia #research

bibliolater, to philosophy avatar

"This Element examines some of their concerns. It uses evidence that critics of peer review sometimes cite to show its failures, as well as empirical literature on the reception of bullshit, to advance positive claims about how the assessment of scholarly work is appropriately influenced by features of the context in which it appears: for example, by readers' knowledge of authorship or of publication venue."

Levy N. Philosophy, Bullshit, and Peer Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2024. doi: @philosophy

kkormas, to academicsunite avatar
kkormas, to phdlife avatar
kkormas, to phdlife avatar
hosmic, to phdlife avatar
kkormas, to phdlife avatar
mimarek, to academicchatter avatar

I did a scholarly peer-review of a manuscript this morning that was a delight to review.

Yes, I am asking for a few changes, but is it already one of the best manuscripts I have reviewed this year.

#academia #scholarship #Writing #PeerReview #Review @academicchatter

wrigleyfield, to academicchatter avatar

Weird professional norms question re social science

A great reviewer objected to a measure I used by giving a long summary of problems with historical newspapers as sources in the era I discuss. The reviewer is correct, & as a result, I'm moving that set of results to an appendix & contextualizing them with a summary of the issues

The reviewer didn't point me to sources & I've only found them for some of the specific points. I can't just quote the review, can I?!


kkormas, to phdlife avatar

It breaks my heart thinking about all the who were ready to start their new or in foreign countries and now they have to give up because they cannot travel from many more countries other than and

@phdlife @PhD_Genie @phdstudents

paulralph, to academicchatter avatar

Journals: Why won't anyone accept our invitations?!?!

Also journals: please spend 30 mins updating your reviewer profile, research interests, conflicts, password, contact details and availability before writing your review. Oh, and check out our terms of service! You'll love this bit about our right to use your review text to train AI models.


ingorohlfing, to academicchatter German avatar

AI can crack double blind – should we still use it?
Blog post reports results of study predicting authorship based on fulltext and manuscript components (title+abstract, self-citations, citation diversity).
I think this is an interesting study, but I don't fully agree with the headline and am not sure how much of a threat AI is (or ML models or whatever) @academicchatter 1/

ukrio, to academicchatter avatar

"arXiv is a cancer that promotes the dissemination of junk 'science' in a format that is indistinguishable from real publications."

Riled by low-quality about , @emilymbender pulls no punches. Thoughts, @academicchatter?

ingorohlfing, avatar

@ukrio @emilymbender @academicchatter The Medium post reads much more balanced than the quote taken from the tweet. I can relate to many points, in particular the rush to publish and to put out papers quickly. I have two main issues with the post:

  • The reality (let's say it is the reality) of preprints is compared with an idealized picture of #PeerReview. Do reviewers "[p]erform thorough and careful evaluation"? We probably won't notice in the cases where they do, but 1/
gpollara, to academicchatter avatar

A very interesting piece of work. And unsurprisingly in "praise" in was low across the board! 😔 @academicchatter @PLOSBiology

kkormas, to phdlife avatar

Identify trusted publishers for your
Through a range of tools and practical resources, this international, cross-sector initiative aims to educate , promote and build trust in credible research & publications.

@peerreviewed @phdlife @PhD_Genie @phdstudents
@academicchatter @IMPACTT @openscience @MicrobioJC @peerjlife

gpollara, to academicchatter avatar

An interesting Letter to the Editor in CMI. It actually makes 2 separate but related points: 🧵

  1. States the benefits of authors re-using peer review performed by other journals, even in the case of paper rejects. It points out the importance of honesty by the authors (though presumably journals can talk to each and also share that information).
    @academicchatter (1/2)
gpollara, avatar

The other point is a more generic one: 🧵

  1. that universities should begin to take into account the amount of peer review that academics do as part of their performance evaluation / assessment for promotion, etc...
    @academicchatter (2/2)
HansZauner, avatar

@gpollara @academicchatter

Open #PeerReview and #Preprints solve the honesty problem:

If reviewers share their comments publicly, linked to a public preprint, journal editors can work from this source and don't need to rely on anonymous info transmitted by the authors.

grimmiges, avatar

@gpollara @HansZauner @academicchatter

Indeed, it's a system that only works if the research community supports and sustains it wholeheartedly.

But based on my experience, in my fields, many of the big players have a lot to lose if the process would become transparant.

Personally, I always signed my reviews (even when the journal policies were against it) and like to comment openly.

But I'm also out of the professional business, I can afford it.

kkormas, to academicchatter avatar

Join the of ’s International Programs Launch Event, as we introduce our new English-speaking programs.

War Museum | Rizari 2-4, Athens, GR | 5 Oct. 2023 | 9:30 - 14:00

For more information & to register:

@phdlife @PhD_Genie @phdstudents
@academicchatter @open_e_resources

louisesparza, to sociology avatar

I could not ask for better praise from my New York friends. @sociology @politicalscience

SerhatTutkal, avatar

@louisesparza @sociology @politicalscience I must say that the number of the experts that are unable to write the country's name correctly never ceases to amaze me. At least half of my reviewers in processes have done the same. I think we should start problematizing this excessive self-esteem by certain academics in elite institutions. It would take them two seconds to check to see if they got the name correct, but they don't even bother.

kkormas, to lgbtq_plus avatar
atthenius, to random avatar

funding agencies say NO to using for

US’ Australia’s : 'NO’ to ChatGPT for peer-review

US' and Europe's mulling it over with working groups.

*Privacy/Piracy “the information becomes part of its training data. ” (why I don’t chatGPT though I really hate writing)
*Error ”AI-written reviews will be error-prone"
*Bias ”against non-mainstream views”
*Boring "lack … creativity “

Humans set the bar high

OSUniBe, to random German avatar

"The Future of Academic " asks: Academic publishing is the backbone of science dissemination –– but is the current system fit for purpose?

SerhatTutkal, avatar

@OSUniBe While I agree with many of the recommendations, I have previously argued against some of them, especially the one by Mastroianni about how we should publish our research on blogs, which would be a step towards the wrong direction (popularity-based evaluation of work). I'm sharing the full text:

@academicchatter @edutooters

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • KamenRider
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • KbinCafe
  • Socialism
  • oklahoma
  • SuperSentai
  • feritale
  • All magazines