#f1000research — Public Fediverse posts

Is #F1000Research using #Eliza to reply to its emails in its open-peer-review #F1000 system?

2026-01-01 my email:

> Please find a *human* who can read this email and fix your faulty editorial pipeline. > Please see the full timeline of this editorial process: https://codeberg.org/boud/open_science_meta/src/branch/main/open_peer_review/F1000_git_report_CCBYSA

2026-01-08 F1000Research email:

> Thank you for mailing us. Could you please elaborate your sent email "Please
> find a *human* who can read this email and fix your faulty editorial pipeline."

#ElizaLives !

Is #F1000Research using #Eliza to reply to its emails in its open-peer-review #F1000 system?

2026-01-01 my email:

> Please find a *human* who can read this email and fix your faulty editorial pipeline. > Please see the full timeline of this editorial process: https://codeberg.org/boud/open_science_meta/src/branch/main/open_peer_review/F1000_git_report_CCBYSA

2026-01-08 F1000Research email:

> Thank you for mailing us. Could you please elaborate your sent email "Please
> find a *human* who can read this email and fix your faulty editorial pipeline."

#ElizaLives !

Does #OpenPeerReview (here #F1000Research ) give editors the right to euphemise reviews? See [1] + my submitted review [2].

The editor wants to *completely remove* these 2 sentences:

"This paper is not a research paper in physics/astronomy/cosmology. I will not review further revisions of this submitted text."

I completely fail to see how the editor can justify this removal (+ I disagree with the other changes).

@academicchatter

[1] https://f1000research.com/articles/11-344/v3

[2] https://codeberg.org/boud/open_science_meta/src/branch/main/open_peer_review/F1000_git_report_CCBYSA

Does #OpenPeerReview (here #F1000Research ) give editors the right to euphemise reviews? See [1] + my submitted review [2].

The editor wants to *completely remove* these 2 sentences:

"This paper is not a research paper in physics/astronomy/cosmology. I will not review further revisions of this submitted text."

I completely fail to see how the editor can justify this removal (+ I disagree with the other changes).

@academicchatter

[1] https://f1000research.com/articles/11-344/v3

[2] https://codeberg.org/boud/open_science_meta/src/branch/main/open_peer_review/F1000_git_report_CCBYSA

I'm pleased to announce that our work on the #FluxFramework operator is published in #F1000Research! This is an example of converged computing and was a joy to collaborate with Aldo Culquicondor, Antonio Ojea (Google) and Daniel Milroy (my team).

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.147989.1.

It was important to me to share the design thinking underlying this work, and hopes for the future for our communities. I hope to do (and inspire others to do) work like this more often.

I'm pleased to announce that our work on the #FluxFramework operator is published in #F1000Research! This is an example of converged computing and was a joy to collaborate with Aldo Culquicondor, Antonio Ojea (Google) and Daniel Milroy (my team).

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.147989.1.

It was important to me to share the design thinking underlying this work, and hopes for the future for our communities. I hope to do (and inspire others to do) work like this more often.

My latest article on #Preprints just published #F1000Research

The rise of preprints in Earth Sciences
https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.133612.2

We encourage #BOSC2023 presenters to share their slides and posters on
#F1000Research, where they can appear in both the BOSC and ISMB collections. Just go to https://f1000research.com/collections/bosc and click the orange “Submit” button near the top right.

We encourage #BOSC2023 presenters to share their slides and posters on
#F1000Research, where they can appear in both the BOSC and ISMB collections. Just go to https://f1000research.com/collections/bosc and click the orange “Submit” button near the top right.

Nice overview on #Reproducibility by #F1000Research

https://f1000.com/resources-for-researchers/open-research/reproducibility/#formstack

Hope it inspires many of their authors and reviewers!

Don't want to give T&F your email? Download the PDF from https://f1000.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/F1000-058-%E2%80%93-Reproducibility-Guide_v1.pdf

It is a bit short on the steps that publishers and journals could take though. If you are an editor with F1000, take a look at http://cdchck.science/

#ReproducibleResearch #OpenScience #CODECHECK

Nice overview on #Reproducibility by #F1000Research

https://f1000.com/resources-for-researchers/open-research/reproducibility/#formstack

Hope it inspires many of their authors and reviewers!

Don't want to give T&F your email? Download the PDF from https://f1000.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/F1000-058-%E2%80%93-Reproducibility-Guide_v1.pdf

It is a bit short on the steps that publishers and journals could take though. If you are an editor with F1000, take a look at http://cdchck.science/

#ReproducibleResearch #OpenScience #CODECHECK

#F1000Research aimed at #OpenPeerReview but is utterly failing. Sending a reminder just one week after a first request for a review (on version 2 of a text), and then saying nothing - effectively refusing to publish the review - for *six months* despite two reminders defeats the whole idea of open peer review.

#Qeios seems to be doing the opposite - after publishing a review immediately, it clarifies by email that it's a *preprint* server.

@academicchatter

[1] https://codeberg.org/boud/open_science_meta/src/branch/main/open_peer_review/F1000_git_report_CCBYSA

#F1000Research aimed at #OpenPeerReview but is utterly failing. Sending a reminder just one week after a first request for a review (on version 2 of a text), and then saying nothing - effectively refusing to publish the review - for *six months* despite two reminders defeats the whole idea of open peer review.

#Qeios seems to be doing the opposite - after publishing a review immediately, it clarifies by email that it's a *preprint* server.

@academicchatter

[1] https://codeberg.org/boud/open_science_meta/src/branch/main/open_peer_review/F1000_git_report_CCBYSA

@academicchatter

Any opinions on #Qeios [0][1] for #OpenPeerReview? Columbia Uni Mailman SchPublicHealth [2] and NYT [3] seem to take it seriously. I'm rather annoyed at #F1000Research , which pressured me for a fast report on v2 of a paper but after 5 months and several reminders hasn't published my review of v2 [4].

Qeios sounds serious. Is it?

[0] https://www.qeios.com/publishing-policy

[1] https://www.qeios.com/recent-articles

[2] https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/new-journal-seeks-reduce-bias-scientific-publishing

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/28/opinion/peer-review-research-studies.html

[4] https://f1000research.com/articles/11-344/v2

@academicchatter

Any opinions on #Qeios [0][1] for #OpenPeerReview? Columbia Uni Mailman SchPublicHealth [2] and NYT [3] seem to take it seriously. I'm rather annoyed at #F1000Research , which pressured me for a fast report on v2 of a paper but after 5 months and several reminders hasn't published my review of v2 [4].

Qeios sounds serious. Is it?

[0] https://www.qeios.com/publishing-policy

[1] https://www.qeios.com/recent-articles

[2] https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/new-journal-seeks-reduce-bias-scientific-publishing

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/28/opinion/peer-review-research-studies.html

[4] https://f1000research.com/articles/11-344/v2

#111BiblioCon
Ja, stimmt #Open_Research_Europe wird von #F1000Research betrieben. Es ist natürlich auch korrekt, dass F1000 #Taylor_and_Francis gehört.
Aber da der Plattformbetreiber ausgeschrieben wurde, kann Open Research Europe auch von einer anderen Firma betrieben werden, wenn dieser Service neu ausgeschrieben wird.
Das ist was substanziell Anderes als z.B. Science Direct oder Springer Link.

How can #OpenAccess, fast-preprint & open #PeerReview foster #OpenScience? And what are key themes for the #EnergyTransition in the context of #ClimateChange & #SDGs?
As advisory board of the #F1000Research #Energy Gateway, we formulate a research agenda!
https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124267.1

How can #OpenAccess, fast-preprint & open #PeerReview foster #OpenScience? And what are key themes for the #EnergyTransition in the context of #ClimateChange & #SDGs?
As advisory board of the #F1000Research #Energy Gateway, we formulate a research agenda!
https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124267.1

@dasaptaerwin

#F1000Research is not going to get many reviewers for its #OpenPeerReview system if after two and a half months, a review of version 2 of a paper is still not published:

https://f1000research.com/articles/11-344/v2

Receipt of my second review was confirmed by email on 6 Feb 2023 ...

#F1000 had a nice idea, but currently it doesn't seem to be working.

#OpenScience

https://framapiaf.org/@boud/108669474100439567

@dasaptaerwin

#F1000Research is not going to get many reviewers for its #OpenPeerReview system if after two and a half months, a review of version 2 of a paper is still not published:

https://f1000research.com/articles/11-344/v2

Receipt of my second review was confirmed by email on 6 Feb 2023 ...

#F1000 had a nice idea, but currently it doesn't seem to be working.

#OpenScience

https://framapiaf.org/@boud/108669474100439567

"There is already a rapidly accelerating race taking place between paper mills using ever more complex AI to produce fake papers at scale and publishers employing ever more sophisticated AI technology to detect issues."

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2022/12/15/ai-paper-mills-and-image-generation-require-a-co-ordinated-response-from-academic-publishers/

#PaperMills #AcademicPublishing #ScienceFraud #F1000Research #TaylorAndFrancis #AI #AIinScience #ImpactOfSocialSciences #SabinaAlam #RebeccaLawrence #FakeScience #PublicationEthics #ResearchIntegrity #AIArmsRace #SciencePublishing #JournalPublishing

"There is already a rapidly accelerating race taking place between paper mills using ever more complex AI to produce fake papers at scale and publishers employing ever more sophisticated AI technology to detect issues."

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2022/12/15/ai-paper-mills-and-image-generation-require-a-co-ordinated-response-from-academic-publishers/

#PaperMills #AcademicPublishing #ScienceFraud #F1000Research #TaylorAndFrancis #AI #AIinScience #ImpactOfSocialSciences #SabinaAlam #RebeccaLawrence #FakeScience #PublicationEthics #ResearchIntegrity #AIArmsRace #SciencePublishing #JournalPublishing

@jospueyo @eliocamp @rstats @academicchatter If i get it right, they are using the #F1000Research technology as foundation. Methinks, the review process is quite similar.

@jospueyo @eliocamp @rstats @academicchatter If i get it right, they are using the #F1000Research technology as foundation. Methinks, the review process is quite similar.

@cartographer @stephenserjeant @dasaptaerwin

#F1000Research [1] has an interesting approach to #OpenPeerReview [2], in which preprints are called "published"; justification: once "published", an article rejected by reviewers cannot be submitted to another journal (but may be revised+resubmitted). In principle, this encourages reviewers to reject papers constructively, treating the authors respectfully [3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1000_%28publisher%29%23F1000Research

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_peer_review

[3] https://f1000research.com/articles/11-344/v1