@grimmiges@HansZauner@academicchatter yes I thought the same. Many in the field revel in the anonymity of tough peer review. If they had to think their comments maybe seen publicly, may not be such a bad thing!
Also in reality, who's got time to also read peer review comments?! #academicchatter
@paulralph@academicchatter true - though however iffy a review may be (and usually they are ok), there are always some good / interesting points raised that grudgingly do actually improve the manuscript by addressing. Seems a waste not to make use of and acknowledge that input. #academicchatter
Having been on both ends, the reality is ~300 people apply for one post and 3 to 5 are shortlisted. Many times, there's an internal candidate if not already working there, then someone with a #PhD or #Postdoc or close professional ties with the department.
One should still apply and hope. But, the disingenuousness should stop.
I'm the reviewer you want today: I just submitted an "accept as-is" on this R&R two hours after receiving it. Somebody give me a cookie (or send this kind reviewer energy my way, please).
Last week I recommended paper to be accepted (admittedly after they'd addressed many of my comments from first round of review) and yet it still felt weird to give a thumbs up on anything.
We're trained to critique, but sometimes I feel like we're also conditioned to simply criticise! Subtle difference... 😉 #academicchatter@academicchatter
It might be useful for new researchers to know how a journal editor screens submissions (obviously this is my approach and so it might differ for others).
I tend to start with a cold read of the abstract. By this I mean I try to do little more than glance at the title, as titles sometimes oversell or, at least, don't help my understanding of what the paper is about.
This is also why I read the cover letter second, so I have an outline of the paper before I'm subjected to the "pitch".
I was familiar with the cover letter pitch but good to know the importance of further background and what to do with the results. Thank you for sharing.
@valdan@onisillos ah good point - should share out even wider - not sure if the #academicchatter group has greater reach than the hashtag, but here goes... @academicchatter
(FYI - the group has 3447 followers, so not bad!)
Yet another philosophy department shut down, at Birkbeck, University of London. Don't even know what to say. Keep doing philosophy, out of spite. We've always had detractors. Remember Socrates?
A few days ago I suggested that a conference be hybrid, but it seems that nobody supports these things anymore...
I understand that it is technically complex (well, for us a little less, since we are computer scientists), but I feel that this is the only ethical way to do things. Hybrid events are good for climate change, they allow people with little budget or health problems to participate, etc.
It's a shame there are virtually no hybrid events anymore, not even among the top conferences 😞
But more generally hybrid events are about effort. They need to be thought about and planned days ahead. The tech cannot be checked live with the audience on the day. I ran a hybrid 1 day symposium earlier this year and it went v v well, but it needed an investment of prep time, people & hardware. #academicchatter@academicchatter
Pretty soon Springer Nature will own every company in the scientific research lifecycle. Then Elsevier will buy them out and there'll just be one company for all your scientific needs.
@Samuelmoore what this cheery press release doesn't say is what Springer Nature wants / will get out of this acquisition. I'm sure it isn't some altruistic move to sustain open scientific protocol sharing... #academicchatter@academicchatter
@PietroGhezzi
You know what, this is so true. You can see / feel the inherent disadvantage, even if subconscious.
Science relies so heavily on making your point persuasively and succinctly. Hard to avoid the advantage of the native English speaker, given that English is the primary language of scientific communication.