home.social

#peerreview — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #peerreview, aggregated by home.social.

  1. "In retrospect, these strategies were a form of authorial self-preservation."

    Autoethnography of the rhetorical and emotional dimensions of writing about study limitations:
    journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/

    The 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.

    #AcademicChatter #AcademicWriting #NightshiftEditor #ECRs

  2. "In retrospect, these strategies were a form of authorial self-preservation."

    Autoethnography of the rhetorical and emotional dimensions of writing about study limitations:
    journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/

    The 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.

    #AcademicChatter #AcademicWriting #NightshiftEditor #ECRs

  3. "In retrospect, these strategies were a form of authorial self-preservation."

    Autoethnography of the rhetorical and emotional dimensions of writing about study limitations:
    journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/

    The 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.

    #AcademicChatter #AcademicWriting #NightshiftEditor #ECRs

  4. "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."
    timeshighereducation.com/opini

    #ai #academicchatter #peerreview

  5. "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."
    timeshighereducation.com/opini

    #ai #academicchatter #peerreview

  6. "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."
    timeshighereducation.com/opini

    #ai #academicchatter #peerreview

  7. 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...

  8. 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...

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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
    newsbeep.com/uk/697549/

  15. 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.

    #scicomm #openaccess

  16. 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.

    #scicomm #openaccess

  17. 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.

    #scicomm #openaccess

  18. 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.

    #scicomm #openaccess

  19. 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.

    #scicomm #openaccess

  20. "If we still believe that science is a vocation grounded in argument, curiosity and care, we can’t delegate judgement to machines"

    timeshighereducation.com/opini

    #ai #peerreview #academia

  21. "If we still believe that science is a vocation grounded in argument, curiosity and care, we can’t delegate judgement to machines"

    timeshighereducation.com/opini

    #ai #peerreview #academia

  22. "If we still believe that science is a vocation grounded in argument, curiosity and care, we can’t delegate judgement to machines"

    timeshighereducation.com/opini

    #ai #peerreview #academia

  23. 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:
    content.prereview.org/prerevie

    #OpenInfrastructure #PeerReview

  24. 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:
    content.prereview.org/prerevie

    #OpenInfrastructure #PeerReview

  25. 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:
    content.prereview.org/prerevie

    #OpenInfrastructure #PeerReview

  26. 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:
    content.prereview.org/prerevie

    #OpenInfrastructure #PeerReview

  27. 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:
    content.prereview.org/prerevie

  28. Wut? Senior author Jonathan Grant writes about grant funding (Grant funding?) 😂

    "The costs and benefits of research grant funding peer review"

    f1000research.com/articles/15-

    #peerreview #funding #research #academicchatter

  29. Wut? Senior author Jonathan Grant writes about grant funding (Grant funding?) 😂

    "The costs and benefits of research grant funding peer review"

    f1000research.com/articles/15-

    #peerreview #funding #research #academicchatter

  30. Wut? Senior author Jonathan Grant writes about grant funding (Grant funding?) 😂

    "The costs and benefits of research grant funding peer review"

    f1000research.com/articles/15-

    #peerreview #funding #research #academicchatter

  31. 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

  32. 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

  33. 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

  34. 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: prereview.org/reviews/21327744

  35. 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: prereview.org/reviews/21327744

  36. 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: prereview.org/reviews/21327744

  37. 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! 🏆
    fi-le.net/arxiv/ #preprintissues #peerreview #academicstandards #summerchild #selfimportance #HackerNews #ngated

  38. 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! 🏆
    fi-le.net/arxiv/ #preprintissues #peerreview #academicstandards #summerchild #selfimportance #HackerNews #ngated

  39. 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! 🏆
    fi-le.net/arxiv/ #preprintissues #peerreview #academicstandards #summerchild #selfimportance #HackerNews #ngated

  40. 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: doi.org/10.1007/s11192-026-056

    #GenAI #PeerReview #ResearchIntegrity #PromptInjection #AcademicPublishing

  41. 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: doi.org/10.1007/s11192-026-056

    #GenAI #PeerReview #ResearchIntegrity #PromptInjection #AcademicPublishing

  42. 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: doi.org/10.1007/s11192-026-056

    #GenAI #PeerReview #ResearchIntegrity #PromptInjection #AcademicPublishing

  43. 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: doi.org/10.1007/s11192-026-056

    #GenAI #PeerReview #ResearchIntegrity #PromptInjection #AcademicPublishing

  44. 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: doi.org/10.1007/s11192-026-056

    #GenAI #PeerReview #ResearchIntegrity #PromptInjection #AcademicPublishing