#peerreview — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #peerreview, aggregated by home.social.
-
"In retrospect, these strategies were a form of authorial self-preservation."
Autoethnography of the rhetorical and emotional dimensions of writing about study limitations:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17470161251363704The paper draws on 8 manuscripts, 17 drafts, 22 #PeerReview by the author, journal entries, and email exchanges.
Interesting reflections & it illustrates the challenges and questions, especially if one has not written many manuscripts, yet.
-
"In retrospect, these strategies were a form of authorial self-preservation."
Autoethnography of the rhetorical and emotional dimensions of writing about study limitations:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17470161251363704The paper draws on 8 manuscripts, 17 drafts, 22 #PeerReview by the author, journal entries, and email exchanges.
Interesting reflections & it illustrates the challenges and questions, especially if one has not written many manuscripts, yet.
-
"In retrospect, these strategies were a form of authorial self-preservation."
Autoethnography of the rhetorical and emotional dimensions of writing about study limitations:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17470161251363704The paper draws on 8 manuscripts, 17 drafts, 22 #PeerReview by the author, journal entries, and email exchanges.
Interesting reflections & it illustrates the challenges and questions, especially if one has not written many manuscripts, yet.
-
"In retrospect, these strategies were a form of authorial self-preservation."
Autoethnography of the rhetorical and emotional dimensions of writing about study limitations:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17470161251363704The paper draws on 8 manuscripts, 17 drafts, 22 #PeerReview by the author, journal entries, and email exchanges.
Interesting reflections & it illustrates the challenges and questions, especially if one has not written many manuscripts, yet.
-
"In retrospect, these strategies were a form of authorial self-preservation."
Autoethnography of the rhetorical and emotional dimensions of writing about study limitations:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17470161251363704The paper draws on 8 manuscripts, 17 drafts, 22 #PeerReview by the author, journal entries, and email exchanges.
Interesting reflections & it illustrates the challenges and questions, especially if one has not written many manuscripts, yet.
-
Faits divers (56)
Dodecaëder (Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden)Een nieuwe aflevering in de onregelmatig verschijnende reeks faits divers, met deze keer: dodecaëders, historische taalkunde en Hannibals Alpentocht, een onderwerp waarbij de grens tussen wetenschap en pseudowetenschap is vervallen. Wat ons automatisch brengt bij Erich von Däniken.
Dodecaëder
Dodecaëders zijn metalen voorwerpen met twaalf dezelfde vijfhoekige vlakken, waarin cirkelvormige openingen zitten. Op de hoeken zijn knopjes aangebracht. Sommige dodecaëders zijn maar vier centimeter in doorsnee, andere wel twaalf; de zwaarste weegt een kilo, de lichtste nog geen veertig gram. Geen mens weet waarvoor ze dienden, al zijn ze vooral in Noordwest-Europa gevonden in uiteenlopende Romeinse contexten. Dat kan een graf zijn, of een legerkamp, een badhuis, een muntschat, een theater of een Friese terp, zoals het exemplaar dat u hierboven ziet, dat is gevonden in Hartwerd.
Er is van alles over bedacht. Regelmatige twaalfvlakken zijn platonische lichamen, maar omdat onwaarschijnlijk is dat Plato veel volgelingen had benoorden de Alpen, zal een levensbeschouwelijke interpretatie in die sfeer wel onjuist zijn. Misschien dienden dodecaëders voor landmeting, al begrijpt niemand hoe, en ook kunnen het de knoppen zijn geweest van knotsen, al zullen dat dan wel knotsen zijn geweest die vooral dienden om mee te pronken. De Eerste Hoofdwet van de Archeologie is ingeroepen: dodecaëders hadden een ritueel doel. Ze kunnen ook zijn gebruikt om gestandaardiseerde wasfiguurtjes te maken. En er bestaat een als grap verzonnen, later serieus uitgewerkte hypothese dat het ging om punnikklosjes. Er is nu een theorie die in die richting verder zoekt: het zou gaan om een instrument om metaaldraadjes te vlechten.
Ik vind dat nog niet eens zo’n vreemd idee, maar navraag bij anderen leerde me dat deze hypothese de variatie aan vindplaatsen niet echt verklaart en dat ook onduidelijk is waarom zo’n ding een kilo wegen kon. Bovendien is er een dodecaëder bekend zonder gaten. We wachten af.
Historische taalkunde
Aron Groot is een classicus die elke zaterdag een kort taalkundig blogje publiceert. Ik noemde hem al eens eerder. Een recent stukje van Groots hand ging over het verschil tussen Herakles en Hercules, en andere blogjes gaan over de etymologie van Italië en het voor-Griekse woord labyrint. Neem een abonnement!
Hannibal
In de jaren tachtig werd in vrijwel alle landen het theoretisch onderwijs gekortwiekt. Zo viel een eerste controle op de wetenschappelijke kwaliteit weg. Een tweede controle was de peer review, en die functioneert in de oudheidkunde al zeker vijftien jaar niet meer, terwijl het hyperspecialisme brede collegiale controle nu net noodzakelijker maakt dan ooit. Een voorbeeld is de vraag waar Hannibal over de Alpen is getrokken: niet alleen een probleem zonder belang, maar ook een onoplosbare vraag, om de doodeenvoudige reden dat de twee bronnen teruggaan op hetzelfde ooggetuigenverslag, dat kort en ambigu is. De geleverde informatie past overal in het Alpengebied en dat maakt de vraag onbeantwoordbaar.
Niet gehinderd door dit simpele inzicht blijven er mensen die denken de oplossing te kunnen weten, om vervolgens de gegevens in die richting praten. “Weten” ze al dat het een noordelijke pas was, dan stak Hannibal de Rhône vrij noordelijk over en trok hij in dagmarsen van vijftig kilometer noordwaarts; “weten” ze al dat het een zuidelijke pas was, dan was de oversteek in het zuiden en zijn de dagmarsen korter. De data staan het allemaal toe, en waarom zou je je ook bekreunen om de onbeantwoordbaarheid van een vraag als je het gewenste antwoord al weet?
De Monte Viso en (links) de Col de la TraversetteEen paar jaar geleden dacht iemand dat hij bij de Col de Traversette de landslide had gevonden die in de bronnen wordt genoemd: een enorme afzetting die Hannibals afdaling zou hebben geblokkeerd. Het was handig geweest als hij verder had gekeken dan de Engelse vertaling, want de woorden die in onze bronnen worden gebruikt, slaan op een stuk weg dat is weggeslagen: geen afzetting dus, maar het tegendeel, erosie. Ondanks deze blunder kwam het gewoon door de peer review, want daar zaten geen classici in.
En nu wordt beweerd dat die route over de Col de Traversette de minste energie zou kosten. Weliswaar een hogere klim (over een pas die zelfs aan de weinige informatie die we hebben, niet voldoet) maar over een kortere afstand. Niet dat Hannibal wist hoeveel energie zijn mannen en dieren nodig hadden, erkennen de onderzoekers, om de echte bezwaren te negeren.
Want: welk eindpunt neem je? Bij de Traversette is de afdaling tot het bovenste deel van een rivierdal steil en kort, bij de andere passen is die langer. Daardoor kost deze route inderdaad de minste energie. Maar je kunt de verschillende routes alleen zinvol vergelijken als je hetzelfde begin- en eindpunt neemt: dus van bijvoorbeeld de Rhôneoversteek (waar?) tot de plek waar alle routes samenkomen (Turijn), en dan is de Montgenèvre (een pas die wel voldoet aan de weinige informatie die we hebben) de pas die de minste energie kost. Geen van de peer reviewers lijkt te hebben herkend dat het artikel een vreemde vergelijking maakt en dat de auteurs een route suggereren die dus niet voldoet aan de weinige informatie die we hebben.
Dit is geen hypothesen op hypothesen stapelen; hier stapelen wetenschappers slecht onderzoek op slecht onderzoek en de conclusie is dat de peer review naar de filistijnen is. Het wetenschappelijk bedrijf is stuk, althans op dit punt. En op meer punten, zoals hier en hier en hier en hier en op vele, vele andere punten.
Von Däniken
Terwijl ik bovenstaande Faits Divers schreef, kwam nog iets leuks binnen. Nou ja, leuk: het gaat over Erich von Däniken. Die insinueerde – want hij bewees niets – dat buitenaardse wezens invloed hadden gehad op de menselijke geschiedenis (Waren de goden kosmonauten?).
Godsdiensthistoricus Mattias Brand (die ook alles weet van manicheeërs) stortte zich op de necrologieën en herkende dat de gepolariseerde discussie van de afgelopen halve eeuw ’s mans nagedachtenis heeft gevormd: er is in de necrologieën sprake van bewondering voor zijn vertelkunst, van onbehagen over zijn aanpak en vooral van een herhaling van allang vastgeroeste verhalen.
Deze blog kunt u ook volgen via een Whatsapp-kanaal.
Deel dit: #AronGroot #dodecaëder #EersteHoofdwetVanDeArcheologie #ErichVonDäniken #FaitsDivers #Hannibal #Herakles #historischeTaalkunde #peerReview -
Real peer review has never been tried
worksinprogress.co/issue/real-p... #science #sciencesky #philosophySky #PeerReview
Real peer review has never bee... -
Real peer review has never been tried
worksinprogress.co/issue/real-p... #science #sciencesky #philosophySky #PeerReview
Real peer review has never bee... -
Real peer review has never been tried
worksinprogress.co/issue/real-p... #science #sciencesky #philosophySky #PeerReview
Real peer review has never bee... -
Real peer review has never been tried
worksinprogress.co/issue/real-p... #science #sciencesky #philosophySky #PeerReview
Real peer review has never bee... -
Real peer review has never been tried
worksinprogress.co/issue/real-p... #science #sciencesky #philosophySky #PeerReview
Real peer review has never bee... -
"Peer review is imperfect, sometimes exclusionary, occasionally petty. We have all seen nonsensical reports and capricious delays. But the answer to those failings is to invest more in the human practice – through training, recognition and realistic expectation – not to hollow it out."
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/ai-not-peer-so-it-cant-do-peer-review -
"Peer review is imperfect, sometimes exclusionary, occasionally petty. We have all seen nonsensical reports and capricious delays. But the answer to those failings is to invest more in the human practice – through training, recognition and realistic expectation – not to hollow it out."
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/ai-not-peer-so-it-cant-do-peer-review -
"Peer review is imperfect, sometimes exclusionary, occasionally petty. We have all seen nonsensical reports and capricious delays. But the answer to those failings is to invest more in the human practice – through training, recognition and realistic expectation – not to hollow it out."
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/ai-not-peer-so-it-cant-do-peer-review -
New study: "We show…that research assessment is driven more by differences between evaluators than by difference in the evaluated research."
arxiv.org/abs/2607.09783
#Academia #Assessment #PeerReview #ScholComm #Universities
Judges matter more than papers... -
New study: "We show…that research assessment is driven more by differences between evaluators than by difference in the evaluated research."
arxiv.org/abs/2607.09783
#Academia #Assessment #PeerReview #ScholComm #Universities
Judges matter more than papers... -
New study: "We show…that research assessment is driven more by differences between evaluators than by difference in the evaluated research."
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.09783 -
New study: "We show…that research assessment is driven more by differences between evaluators than by difference in the evaluated research."
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.09783 -
New study: "We show…that research assessment is driven more by differences between evaluators than by difference in the evaluated research."
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.09783 -
New study: "We show…that research assessment is driven more by differences between evaluators than by difference in the evaluated research."
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.09783 -
New study: "We show…that research assessment is driven more by differences between evaluators than by difference in the evaluated research."
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.09783 -
Will making ‘replication studies’ easier to find help science self-correct?
Credit: bpawesome/Getty The replication of experimental results is important for building credible science, but replication studies are often…
#NewsBeep #News #Science #Databases #GB #HumanitiesandSocialSciences #multidisciplinary #Peerreview #Researchdata #UK #UnitedKingdom
https://www.newsbeep.com/uk/697549/ -
Symbolic image of the state of #academic #publishing: The original study does not contain much detail (most certainly not a single word of #humour), and the #replication study is locked up behind a #paywall, on which #impactfactor, #peerreview, #plagiarism, #copyright and #publicationbias are having #popcorn.
-
Symbolic image of the state of #academic #publishing: The original study does not contain much detail (most certainly not a single word of #humour), and the #replication study is locked up behind a #paywall, on which #impactfactor, #peerreview, #plagiarism, #copyright and #publicationbias are having #popcorn.
-
Symbolic image of the state of #academic #publishing: The original study does not contain much detail (most certainly not a single word of #humour), and the #replication study is locked up behind a #paywall, on which #impactfactor, #peerreview, #plagiarism, #copyright and #publicationbias are having #popcorn.
-
Symbolic image of the state of #academic #publishing: The original study does not contain much detail (most certainly not a single word of #humour), and the #replication study is locked up behind a #paywall, on which #impactfactor, #peerreview, #plagiarism, #copyright and #publicationbias are having #popcorn.
-
Symbolic image of the state of #academic #publishing: The original study does not contain much detail (most certainly not a single word of #humour), and the #replication study is locked up behind a #paywall, on which #impactfactor, #peerreview, #plagiarism, #copyright and #publicationbias are having #popcorn.
-
"If we still believe that science is a vocation grounded in argument, curiosity and care, we can’t delegate judgement to machines"
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/ai-not-peer-so-it-cant-do-peer-review
-
"If we still believe that science is a vocation grounded in argument, curiosity and care, we can’t delegate judgement to machines"
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/ai-not-peer-so-it-cant-do-peer-review
-
"If we still believe that science is a vocation grounded in argument, curiosity and care, we can’t delegate judgement to machines"
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/ai-not-peer-so-it-cant-do-peer-review
-
If you coordinate a PREreview Club, we’ve got news for you
Now club leads can ask us to attach a review to their club’s page directly within the review workflow. No need to email us!
👉 Find out more about this and other platform optimizations for clubs in today’s Weeknote:
https://content.prereview.org/prereview-platform-news-17-july-2026/ -
If you coordinate a PREreview Club, we’ve got news for you
Now club leads can ask us to attach a review to their club’s page directly within the review workflow. No need to email us!
👉 Find out more about this and other platform optimizations for clubs in today’s Weeknote:
https://content.prereview.org/prereview-platform-news-17-july-2026/ -
If you coordinate a PREreview Club, we’ve got news for you
Now club leads can ask us to attach a review to their club’s page directly within the review workflow. No need to email us!
👉 Find out more about this and other platform optimizations for clubs in today’s Weeknote:
https://content.prereview.org/prereview-platform-news-17-july-2026/ -
If you coordinate a PREreview Club, we’ve got news for you
Now club leads can ask us to attach a review to their club’s page directly within the review workflow. No need to email us!
👉 Find out more about this and other platform optimizations for clubs in today’s Weeknote:
https://content.prereview.org/prereview-platform-news-17-july-2026/ -
If you coordinate a PREreview Club, we’ve got news for you
Now club leads can ask us to attach a review to their club’s page directly within the review workflow. No need to email us!
👉 Find out more about this and other platform optimizations for clubs in today’s Weeknote:
https://content.prereview.org/prereview-platform-news-17-july-2026/ -
Wut? Senior author Jonathan Grant writes about grant funding (Grant funding?) 😂
"The costs and benefits of research grant funding peer review" -
Wut? Senior author Jonathan Grant writes about grant funding (Grant funding?) 😂
"The costs and benefits of research grant funding peer review" -
Wut? Senior author Jonathan Grant writes about grant funding (Grant funding?) 😂
"The costs and benefits of research grant funding peer review" -
#NotNews24 | #UnbreaklingFuckITFridayNotNews; #IT's #DefinitelyNotNews and #SomeWeather...
#IT's #Still #JollySunny in #TheOutside; there will be #MoreSalad... 🥗 And, #FishCakes; they're a #TypeOfCake... #MadeWithFish...
#OrLobster... 🦞 | #WaitroseYutaniCorpsCooperative - we're #SomewhatMilitary and #HighlyWeaponised...
#CaptainRedBeanBear [ #FictionalCommunityManager] has #MadeSome... #Gazpacho...
#MescalineNotIncluded | #OtherSecondGenerationAntiPsychotics #AreAvailable
#TopTip: #OnlyForProfessionals...
#You can #AlwaysUse #AnotherGPTChatBot to #Diagnose a #PracticalTherapy for #YourMentalHealth #MentalDisorder; #IT should be #UsedInConjunction with #MedicalProfessionals #Subject to #PeerReview; #Because...
#That's #HowScienceWorks...
Have #AnotherPrideMonth; #OrSomething...
🧙⚔️🤖:wolfparty:🤖⚔️🧙 | :fediverse:🦹:PirateBadge:🦄:PirateBadge:🦹:fediverse:
#EuropeanServer #BeingEuropean #SomewhereInEurope #MFFS #LemonUp #FunTimeFridays #HappyBaconSammidgeDay #TheWeekend #Soon #TheWeekendAgain #AgainAgain #LittleMissPorkMarkets #FullMentalJacket #RedBeanBear #StillRed
-
It is 2026, and we still get this criticism in a review: "First and foremost, the contribution is primarily confirmatory […] I would argue that the work is predominantly incremental." Yes. This is called the scientific method. How can we change the strange interpretation of novelty that is in many reviewers' heads?
@seresearchers
#peerreview #EmpiricalResearch -
It is 2026, and we still get this criticism in a review: "First and foremost, the contribution is primarily confirmatory […] I would argue that the work is predominantly incremental." Yes. This is called the scientific method. How can we change the strange interpretation of novelty that is in many reviewers' heads?
@seresearchers
#peerreview #EmpiricalResearch -
It is 2026, and we still get this criticism in a review: "First and foremost, the contribution is primarily confirmatory […] I would argue that the work is predominantly incremental." Yes. This is called the scientific method. How can we change the strange interpretation of novelty that is in many reviewers' heads?
@seresearchers
#peerreview #EmpiricalResearch -
The review resulting from our Community #LiveReview on June 25th is now published.
When an important piece of research shared as a preprint on medRxiv was prevented from receiving journal-organized #PeerReview, the community joined forces and stepped in.
Open, community-driven review offers a different future for research evaluation—one centered on dialogue, transparency, training, and broader participation. A future that extends beyond the research publication as a finish line, to enable continuous scrutiny and conversation.
We are grateful to @csmarcum for taking the lead on this initiative, and to everyone who participated in this rigorous and deeply human collaborative review session.
👉 Read the review and share your thoughts openly through our comment feature: https://prereview.org/reviews/21327744
-
The review resulting from our Community #LiveReview on June 25th is now published.
When an important piece of research shared as a preprint on medRxiv was prevented from receiving journal-organized #PeerReview, the community joined forces and stepped in.
Open, community-driven review offers a different future for research evaluation—one centered on dialogue, transparency, training, and broader participation. A future that extends beyond the research publication as a finish line, to enable continuous scrutiny and conversation.
We are grateful to @csmarcum for taking the lead on this initiative, and to everyone who participated in this rigorous and deeply human collaborative review session.
👉 Read the review and share your thoughts openly through our comment feature: https://prereview.org/reviews/21327744
-
The review resulting from our Community #LiveReview on June 25th is now published.
When an important piece of research shared as a preprint on medRxiv was prevented from receiving journal-organized #PeerReview, the community joined forces and stepped in.
Open, community-driven review offers a different future for research evaluation—one centered on dialogue, transparency, training, and broader participation. A future that extends beyond the research publication as a finish line, to enable continuous scrutiny and conversation.
We are grateful to @csmarcum for taking the lead on this initiative, and to everyone who participated in this rigorous and deeply human collaborative review session.
👉 Read the review and share your thoughts openly through our comment feature: https://prereview.org/reviews/21327744
-
Oh, sweet summer child, you thought your preprint would magically appear on arXiv overnight? 😂 Apparently, someone finally decided to hold your self-important drivel to the same standards as actual academic work. 🧐 Maybe try peer review for once, champ! 🏆
https://fi-le.net/arxiv/ #preprintissues #peerreview #academicstandards #summerchild #selfimportance #HackerNews #ngated -
Oh, sweet summer child, you thought your preprint would magically appear on arXiv overnight? 😂 Apparently, someone finally decided to hold your self-important drivel to the same standards as actual academic work. 🧐 Maybe try peer review for once, champ! 🏆
https://fi-le.net/arxiv/ #preprintissues #peerreview #academicstandards #summerchild #selfimportance #HackerNews #ngated -
Oh, sweet summer child, you thought your preprint would magically appear on arXiv overnight? 😂 Apparently, someone finally decided to hold your self-important drivel to the same standards as actual academic work. 🧐 Maybe try peer review for once, champ! 🏆
https://fi-le.net/arxiv/ #preprintissues #peerreview #academicstandards #summerchild #selfimportance #HackerNews #ngated -
Want to always win research grants 🏆 and get all your manuscripts accepted? Scientists may have figured out what you need to tell #ChatGPT 🤖
A new study tested hidden prompt injections embedded in manuscripts. When reviewers uploaded the papers to public #LLMs and asked for a review, the hidden instructions could steer the model toward a positive evaluation with a ~99% success rate.
:doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-026-05695-x
#GenAI #PeerReview #ResearchIntegrity #PromptInjection #AcademicPublishing
-
Want to always win research grants 🏆 and get all your manuscripts accepted? Scientists may have figured out what you need to tell #ChatGPT 🤖
A new study tested hidden prompt injections embedded in manuscripts. When reviewers uploaded the papers to public #LLMs and asked for a review, the hidden instructions could steer the model toward a positive evaluation with a ~99% success rate.
:doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-026-05695-x
#GenAI #PeerReview #ResearchIntegrity #PromptInjection #AcademicPublishing