#openpeerreview — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #openpeerreview, aggregated by home.social.
-
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).
[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).
[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).
[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).
[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).
[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
-
@cwts colleague Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner just published paper about peer review in psychology https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/wfs9v.
The paper presents fascinating analysis of peer review practices in terms of tension between gift-giving and accumulation. Analysis is based on case studies of three publishing outlets: #PsychologicalScience, #Collabra and @PeerCommunityIn #RegisteredReports.
Recommended reading if you're interested in #OpenScience, #OpenData, #OpenPeerReview, #Preprinting or #RegisteredReports!
-
#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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[1] https://codeberg.org/boud/open_science_meta/src/branch/main/open_peer_review/F1000_git_report_CCBYSA
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
#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.
-
#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.
-
#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.
-
#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.
-
#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.