#peer-review — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #peer-review, aggregated by home.social.
-
The world of academic publishing is marvellous: reviewers may be experts in one half of an interdisciplinary paper, dismiss the other half from outside their own field, and then recommend work written by the authors or their closest colleagues.
#academia #academicpublishing #fuckoff #PeerReview #ReviewerTwo
-
The world of academic publishing is marvellous: reviewers may be experts in one half of an interdisciplinary paper, dismiss the other half from outside their own field, and then recommend work written by the authors or their closest colleagues.
#academia #academicpublishing #fuckoff #PeerReview #ReviewerTwo
-
How to peer review a paper in 2026
https://jilltxt.net/how-to-peer-review-a-paper-in-2026/ -
How to peer review a paper in 2026
https://jilltxt.net/how-to-peer-review-a-paper-in-2026/ -
How to peer review a paper in 2026
https://jilltxt.net/how-to-peer-review-a-paper-in-2026/ -
How to peer review a paper in 2026
https://jilltxt.net/how-to-peer-review-a-paper-in-2026/ -
How to peer review a paper in 2026
https://jilltxt.net/how-to-peer-review-a-paper-in-2026/ -
Can #GenAI help scrutinise the scientific literature, not just create it?
:doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-026-09761-0
In our new paper, we tested #ChatGPT and #DeepSeek as triage tools for post-publication peer review. The result: useful potential, but human verification remains essential.
#ResearchIntegrity #PeerReview #LLMs #ScholarlyCommunication
-
Can #GenAI help scrutinise the scientific literature, not just create it?
:doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-026-09761-0
In our new paper, we tested #ChatGPT and #DeepSeek as triage tools for post-publication peer review. The result: useful potential, but human verification remains essential.
#ResearchIntegrity #PeerReview #LLMs #ScholarlyCommunication
-
Can #GenAI help scrutinise the scientific literature, not just create it?
:doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-026-09761-0
In our new paper, we tested #ChatGPT and #DeepSeek as triage tools for post-publication peer review. The result: useful potential, but human verification remains essential.
#ResearchIntegrity #PeerReview #LLMs #ScholarlyCommunication
-
Can #GenAI help scrutinise the scientific literature, not just create it?
:doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-026-09761-0
In our new paper, we tested #ChatGPT and #DeepSeek as triage tools for post-publication peer review. The result: useful potential, but human verification remains essential.
#ResearchIntegrity #PeerReview #LLMs #ScholarlyCommunication
-
Can #GenAI help scrutinise the scientific literature, not just create it?
:doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-026-09761-0
In our new paper, we tested #ChatGPT and #DeepSeek as triage tools for post-publication peer review. The result: useful potential, but human verification remains essential.
#ResearchIntegrity #PeerReview #LLMs #ScholarlyCommunication
-
🤦♂️ " #NIH Wants to Remove Peer Review Scores From #Grant Applications "
-
🤦♂️ " #NIH Wants to Remove Peer Review Scores From #Grant Applications "
-
🤦♂️ " #NIH Wants to Remove Peer Review Scores From #Grant Applications "
-
🤦♂️ " #NIH Wants to Remove Peer Review Scores From #Grant Applications "
-
🤦♂️ " #NIH Wants to Remove Peer Review Scores From #Grant Applications "
-
NIH is proposing a change on how they report back review outcomes on grant applications. Rather than providing a specific impact score, applications would be put into one of three categories, "most competitive," "competitive," and "not discussed." https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-26-088.html
cc @petersuber
-
NIH is proposing a change on how they report back review outcomes on grant applications. Rather than providing a specific impact score, applications would be put into one of three categories, "most competitive," "competitive," and "not discussed." https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-26-088.html
cc @petersuber
-
NIH is proposing a change on how they report back review outcomes on grant applications. Rather than providing a specific impact score, applications would be put into one of three categories, "most competitive," "competitive," and "not discussed." https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-26-088.html
cc @petersuber
-
NIH is proposing a change on how they report back review outcomes on grant applications. Rather than providing a specific impact score, applications would be put into one of three categories, "most competitive," "competitive," and "not discussed." https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-26-088.html
cc @petersuber
-
NIH is proposing a change on how they report back review outcomes on grant applications. Rather than providing a specific impact score, applications would be put into one of three categories, "most competitive," "competitive," and "not discussed." https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-26-088.html
cc @petersuber
-
Ars Technica: Peer review is overwhelmed—can it survive in the AI era?. “The number of papers indexed in the databases Scopus and Web of Science, for example, has recently been increasing exponentially, at a rate of 5.6 percent per year. By one estimate, researchers around the globe are devoting a collective 15,000 years of work to peer review every year—work that, if paid, would cost $1.5 […]
https://rbfirehose.com/2026/08/14/ars-technica-peer-review-is-overwhelmed-can-it-survive-in-the-ai-era/ -
Ars Technica: Peer review is overwhelmed—can it survive in the AI era?. “The number of papers indexed in the databases Scopus and Web of Science, for example, has recently been increasing exponentially, at a rate of 5.6 percent per year. By one estimate, researchers around the globe are devoting a collective 15,000 years of work to peer review every year—work that, if paid, would cost $1.5 […]
https://rbfirehose.com/2026/08/14/ars-technica-peer-review-is-overwhelmed-can-it-survive-in-the-ai-era/ -
Ars Technica: Peer review is overwhelmed—can it survive in the AI era?. “The number of papers indexed in the databases Scopus and Web of Science, for example, has recently been increasing exponentially, at a rate of 5.6 percent per year. By one estimate, researchers around the globe are devoting a collective 15,000 years of work to peer review every year—work that, if paid, would cost $1.5 […]
https://rbfirehose.com/2026/08/14/ars-technica-peer-review-is-overwhelmed-can-it-survive-in-the-ai-era/ -
Ars Technica: Peer review is overwhelmed—can it survive in the AI era?. “The number of papers indexed in the databases Scopus and Web of Science, for example, has recently been increasing exponentially, at a rate of 5.6 percent per year. By one estimate, researchers around the globe are devoting a collective 15,000 years of work to peer review every year—work that, if paid, would cost $1.5 […]
https://rbfirehose.com/2026/08/14/ars-technica-peer-review-is-overwhelmed-can-it-survive-in-the-ai-era/ -
Ars Technica: Peer review is overwhelmed—can it survive in the AI era?. “The number of papers indexed in the databases Scopus and Web of Science, for example, has recently been increasing exponentially, at a rate of 5.6 percent per year. By one estimate, researchers around the globe are devoting a collective 15,000 years of work to peer review every year—work that, if paid, would cost $1.5 […]
https://rbfirehose.com/2026/08/14/ars-technica-peer-review-is-overwhelmed-can-it-survive-in-the-ai-era/ -
An AI system has written scientific papers that passed peer review, out-performing more than half of human submissions. This step raises questions about how AI will reshape scientific research, peer review, and the evaluation of scientific contributions.
Learn more about how AI affects the industry and #PeerReview: https://cacm.acm.org/news/ai-prepped-paper-passed-peer-review-now-what/
-
An AI system has written scientific papers that passed peer review, out-performing more than half of human submissions. This step raises questions about how AI will reshape scientific research, peer review, and the evaluation of scientific contributions.
Learn more about how AI affects the industry and #PeerReview: https://cacm.acm.org/news/ai-prepped-paper-passed-peer-review-now-what/
-
An AI system has written scientific papers that passed peer review, out-performing more than half of human submissions. This step raises questions about how AI will reshape scientific research, peer review, and the evaluation of scientific contributions.
Learn more about how AI affects the industry and #PeerReview: https://cacm.acm.org/news/ai-prepped-paper-passed-peer-review-now-what/
-
An AI system has written scientific papers that passed peer review, out-performing more than half of human submissions. This step raises questions about how AI will reshape scientific research, peer review, and the evaluation of scientific contributions.
Learn more about how AI affects the industry and #PeerReview: https://cacm.acm.org/news/ai-prepped-paper-passed-peer-review-now-what/
-
Biology journal pulls 100+ articles and counting from special issues for peer review manipulation
-
“Research Gold, a site that advertises services for medical researchers, including drafting peer-review ready manuscripts, systemic reviews and meta-analyses, claims that it’s “100% human-written, never AI,” and lists a number of PhD reviewers and professional methodologists on staff that carry out this meticulous, difficult work.
The problem: The PhD reviewers Research Gold lists on its site are AI-generated and don’t exist. Other methodologists it lists are real, but are not aware their identity is being used by Research Gold. When I tried calling the company, an AI agent that refused to concede it was AI answered and kept trying to sell me Research Gold’s services. Email and chat communication with the company were also AI generated.”
https://www.404media.co/company-offering-100-human-written-never-ai-peer-review-is-entirely-ai/
#AI #GenerativeAI #AcademicPublishing #ResearchGold #PeerReview
-
“Research Gold, a site that advertises services for medical researchers, including drafting peer-review ready manuscripts, systemic reviews and meta-analyses, claims that it’s “100% human-written, never AI,” and lists a number of PhD reviewers and professional methodologists on staff that carry out this meticulous, difficult work.
The problem: The PhD reviewers Research Gold lists on its site are AI-generated and don’t exist. Other methodologists it lists are real, but are not aware their identity is being used by Research Gold. When I tried calling the company, an AI agent that refused to concede it was AI answered and kept trying to sell me Research Gold’s services. Email and chat communication with the company were also AI generated.”
https://www.404media.co/company-offering-100-human-written-never-ai-peer-review-is-entirely-ai/
#AI #GenerativeAI #AcademicPublishing #ResearchGold #PeerReview
-
“Research Gold, a site that advertises services for medical researchers, including drafting peer-review ready manuscripts, systemic reviews and meta-analyses, claims that it’s “100% human-written, never AI,” and lists a number of PhD reviewers and professional methodologists on staff that carry out this meticulous, difficult work.
The problem: The PhD reviewers Research Gold lists on its site are AI-generated and don’t exist. Other methodologists it lists are real, but are not aware their identity is being used by Research Gold. When I tried calling the company, an AI agent that refused to concede it was AI answered and kept trying to sell me Research Gold’s services. Email and chat communication with the company were also AI generated.”
https://www.404media.co/company-offering-100-human-written-never-ai-peer-review-is-entirely-ai/
#AI #GenerativeAI #AcademicPublishing #ResearchGold #PeerReview
-
“Research Gold, a site that advertises services for medical researchers, including drafting peer-review ready manuscripts, systemic reviews and meta-analyses, claims that it’s “100% human-written, never AI,” and lists a number of PhD reviewers and professional methodologists on staff that carry out this meticulous, difficult work.
The problem: The PhD reviewers Research Gold lists on its site are AI-generated and don’t exist. Other methodologists it lists are real, but are not aware their identity is being used by Research Gold. When I tried calling the company, an AI agent that refused to concede it was AI answered and kept trying to sell me Research Gold’s services. Email and chat communication with the company were also AI generated.”
https://www.404media.co/company-offering-100-human-written-never-ai-peer-review-is-entirely-ai/
#AI #GenerativeAI #AcademicPublishing #ResearchGold #PeerReview
-
“Research Gold, a site that advertises services for medical researchers, including drafting peer-review ready manuscripts, systemic reviews and meta-analyses, claims that it’s “100% human-written, never AI,” and lists a number of PhD reviewers and professional methodologists on staff that carry out this meticulous, difficult work.
The problem: The PhD reviewers Research Gold lists on its site are AI-generated and don’t exist. Other methodologists it lists are real, but are not aware their identity is being used by Research Gold. When I tried calling the company, an AI agent that refused to concede it was AI answered and kept trying to sell me Research Gold’s services. Email and chat communication with the company were also AI generated.”
https://www.404media.co/company-offering-100-human-written-never-ai-peer-review-is-entirely-ai/
#AI #GenerativeAI #AcademicPublishing #ResearchGold #PeerReview
-
#PeerReview is overwhelmed—can it survive in the #AI era?
Researchers need peer-reviewed publications to secure jobs and grants, so they continue to slog through the system even though it’s becoming “extremely protracted and painful”
The number of papers in databases Scopus and Web of Science has recently been increasing exponentially, at a rate of 5.6% per year. By one estimate, researchers around globe are devoting a collective 15,000yr of work to peer review every year
https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/08/peer-review-is-overwhelmed-can-it-survive-in-the-ai-era/ -
#PeerReview is overwhelmed—can it survive in the #AI era?
Researchers need peer-reviewed publications to secure jobs and grants, so they continue to slog through the system even though it’s becoming “extremely protracted and painful”
The number of papers in databases Scopus and Web of Science has recently been increasing exponentially, at a rate of 5.6% per year. By one estimate, researchers around globe are devoting a collective 15,000yr of work to peer review every year
https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/08/peer-review-is-overwhelmed-can-it-survive-in-the-ai-era/ -
#PeerReview is overwhelmed—can it survive in the #AI era?
Researchers need peer-reviewed publications to secure jobs and grants, so they continue to slog through the system even though it’s becoming “extremely protracted and painful”
The number of papers in databases Scopus and Web of Science has recently been increasing exponentially, at a rate of 5.6% per year. By one estimate, researchers around globe are devoting a collective 15,000yr of work to peer review every year
https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/08/peer-review-is-overwhelmed-can-it-survive-in-the-ai-era/ -
#PeerReview is overwhelmed—can it survive in the #AI era?
Researchers need peer-reviewed publications to secure jobs and grants, so they continue to slog through the system even though it’s becoming “extremely protracted and painful”
The number of papers in databases Scopus and Web of Science has recently been increasing exponentially, at a rate of 5.6% per year. By one estimate, researchers around globe are devoting a collective 15,000yr of work to peer review every year
https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/08/peer-review-is-overwhelmed-can-it-survive-in-the-ai-era/ -
#PeerReview is overwhelmed—can it survive in the #AI era?
Researchers need peer-reviewed publications to secure jobs and grants, so they continue to slog through the system even though it’s becoming “extremely protracted and painful”
The number of papers in databases Scopus and Web of Science has recently been increasing exponentially, at a rate of 5.6% per year. By one estimate, researchers around globe are devoting a collective 15,000yr of work to peer review every year
https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/08/peer-review-is-overwhelmed-can-it-survive-in-the-ai-era/ -
Company Offering ‘100% Human-Written, Never AI’ Medical Research Is Entirely AI
-
Company Offering ‘100% Human-Written, Never AI’ Medical Research Is Entirely AI
-
Company Offering ‘100% Human-Written, Never AI’ Medical Research Is Entirely AI
-
Company Offering ‘100% Human-Written, Never AI’ Medical Research Is Entirely AI
-
Company Offering ‘100% Human-Written, Never AI’ Medical Research Is Entirely AI
-
"Peer review is overwhelmed—can it survive in the AI era?
As research and AI-assisted papers surge, volunteer reviewers struggle to keep up."#Science #Engineering #Peer #PeerReview #Publications ...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/08/peer-review-is-overwhelmed-can-it-survive-in-the-ai-era/
-
"Peer review is overwhelmed—can it survive in the AI era?
As research and AI-assisted papers surge, volunteer reviewers struggle to keep up."#Science #Engineering #Peer #PeerReview #Publications ...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/08/peer-review-is-overwhelmed-can-it-survive-in-the-ai-era/
-
"Peer review is overwhelmed—can it survive in the AI era?
As research and AI-assisted papers surge, volunteer reviewers struggle to keep up."#Science #Engineering #Peer #PeerReview #Publications ...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/08/peer-review-is-overwhelmed-can-it-survive-in-the-ai-era/
-
"Peer review is overwhelmed—can it survive in the AI era?
As research and AI-assisted papers surge, volunteer reviewers struggle to keep up."#Science #Engineering #Peer #PeerReview #Publications ...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/08/peer-review-is-overwhelmed-can-it-survive-in-the-ai-era/
-
"Peer review is overwhelmed—can it survive in the AI era?
As research and AI-assisted papers surge, volunteer reviewers struggle to keep up."#Science #Engineering #Peer #PeerReview #Publications ...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/08/peer-review-is-overwhelmed-can-it-survive-in-the-ai-era/
-
One of the current #TDCC projects we were able to help make possible is #Metacheck. Blanket statement from me: If you are a #researcher, go check it out!
-
One of the current #TDCC projects we were able to help make possible is #Metacheck. Blanket statement from me: If you are a #researcher, go check it out!
-
One of the current #TDCC projects we were able to help make possible is #Metacheck. Blanket statement from me: If you are a #researcher, go check it out!
-
One of the current #TDCC projects we were able to help make possible is #Metacheck. Blanket statement from me: If you are a #researcher, go check it out!
-
One of the current #TDCC projects we were able to help make possible is #Metacheck. Blanket statement from me: If you are a #researcher, go check it out!
-
#AI #PeerReview #science #blogs
"Peer review is overwhelmed—can it survive in the AI era?
As research and AI-assisted papers surge, volunteer reviewers struggle to keep up.
The number of papers indexed in the databases Scopus and Web of Science, for example, has recently been increasing exponentially, at a rate of 5.6 percent per year. By one estimate, researchers around the globe are devoting a collective 15,000 years of work to peer review every year—work that, if paid, would cost $1.5 billion for the share done in the US alone. Increasingly, researchers are finding it hard to donate that kind of time.
'I struggle like anything to get peer reviewers, said Haseeb Irfanullah, who is on the editorial board of Wiley’s Learned Publishing but whose comments represent his own views as an independent consultant. Steven Mack, an editor for Human Immunology, has recently had to email around thirty researchers to find just one who would review a paper. Five years ago, he estimates it would have taken only five to 10 emails to find three willing reviewers. In this landscape, it’s not surprising that editors are assigning reviews to people who aren’t qualified or don’t have the time to concentrate on them.
In most fields, researchers need peer-reviewed publications to secure jobs and grants, so they continue to slog through the system even though it’s becoming 'extremely protracted and painful,' in the words of microbiologist Sebastian Lourido from the Whitehead Institute.
Increasingly, many are advocating for change. Meanwhile, a few bold researchers have decided that the traditional publishing system just isn’t worth it anymore—AI research in particular has seen a shift toward communicating impactful findings through very informal means, like blogs.
Peer review is 'the bedrock of science,' Semprini said. But at this moment, 'it’s not standing strong.'"
https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/08/peer-review-is-overwhelmed-can-it-survive-in-the-ai-era/
-
#AI #PeerReview #science #blogs
"Peer review is overwhelmed—can it survive in the AI era?
As research and AI-assisted papers surge, volunteer reviewers struggle to keep up.
The number of papers indexed in the databases Scopus and Web of Science, for example, has recently been increasing exponentially, at a rate of 5.6 percent per year. By one estimate, researchers around the globe are devoting a collective 15,000 years of work to peer review every year—work that, if paid, would cost $1.5 billion for the share done in the US alone. Increasingly, researchers are finding it hard to donate that kind of time.
'I struggle like anything to get peer reviewers, said Haseeb Irfanullah, who is on the editorial board of Wiley’s Learned Publishing but whose comments represent his own views as an independent consultant. Steven Mack, an editor for Human Immunology, has recently had to email around thirty researchers to find just one who would review a paper. Five years ago, he estimates it would have taken only five to 10 emails to find three willing reviewers. In this landscape, it’s not surprising that editors are assigning reviews to people who aren’t qualified or don’t have the time to concentrate on them.
In most fields, researchers need peer-reviewed publications to secure jobs and grants, so they continue to slog through the system even though it’s becoming 'extremely protracted and painful,' in the words of microbiologist Sebastian Lourido from the Whitehead Institute.
Increasingly, many are advocating for change. Meanwhile, a few bold researchers have decided that the traditional publishing system just isn’t worth it anymore—AI research in particular has seen a shift toward communicating impactful findings through very informal means, like blogs.
Peer review is 'the bedrock of science,' Semprini said. But at this moment, 'it’s not standing strong.'"
https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/08/peer-review-is-overwhelmed-can-it-survive-in-the-ai-era/
-
#AI #PeerReview #science #blogs
"Peer review is overwhelmed—can it survive in the AI era?
As research and AI-assisted papers surge, volunteer reviewers struggle to keep up.
The number of papers indexed in the databases Scopus and Web of Science, for example, has recently been increasing exponentially, at a rate of 5.6 percent per year. By one estimate, researchers around the globe are devoting a collective 15,000 years of work to peer review every year—work that, if paid, would cost $1.5 billion for the share done in the US alone. Increasingly, researchers are finding it hard to donate that kind of time.
'I struggle like anything to get peer reviewers, said Haseeb Irfanullah, who is on the editorial board of Wiley’s Learned Publishing but whose comments represent his own views as an independent consultant. Steven Mack, an editor for Human Immunology, has recently had to email around thirty researchers to find just one who would review a paper. Five years ago, he estimates it would have taken only five to 10 emails to find three willing reviewers. In this landscape, it’s not surprising that editors are assigning reviews to people who aren’t qualified or don’t have the time to concentrate on them.
In most fields, researchers need peer-reviewed publications to secure jobs and grants, so they continue to slog through the system even though it’s becoming 'extremely protracted and painful,' in the words of microbiologist Sebastian Lourido from the Whitehead Institute.
Increasingly, many are advocating for change. Meanwhile, a few bold researchers have decided that the traditional publishing system just isn’t worth it anymore—AI research in particular has seen a shift toward communicating impactful findings through very informal means, like blogs.
Peer review is 'the bedrock of science,' Semprini said. But at this moment, 'it’s not standing strong.'"
https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/08/peer-review-is-overwhelmed-can-it-survive-in-the-ai-era/