Peer review has its flaws, but if one reads the methods section of a manuscript first, before any results, it becomes clear quickly whether anything the manuscript claims is reproducible or not, given the level of completeness and of detail.
The tragedy is that reviewers seldom if ever read the methods section.
Anyone interested in a $250 stipend for peer reviewing an OER textbook, "Intro to Communication and Media Studies"? It's adapted from several sources and has some original contributions by both me and my students. Due to a federal grant requirement, this is only open to those living in the U.S. I need three reviewers! Happy to answer any questions. #academia#peerreview#OER @academicchatter@academicsunite
Gratifying discovery: the heavily theoretical most recent paper on the issue I'm writing about is based on a tiny dataset. So I will be able to contribute usefully.
The highlight of peer review research in 2023 was the biggest trial yet of naming authors (or not) in peer review.
The authors concluded that their trial provides strong evidence "double-blind review" substantially reduces prestige bias.
I don't have as much confidence in that result though. In my new @PLOS post, I explain why - and why, even with this big trial, we're still a long way from clarity....
Hello fellow scientists, I'm looking for academic journal suggestions!
Where would you submit, or where would you go read a paper about clustering subjects based on the similarity network built from their cognitive and motor tests scores after stroke?
Preprint at https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.11.08.23297808v1
The paper discusses both methodology (similarity measures*, graph clustering**, compared to the tradition in the field of PCA and regression), and clinical aspects (typical lesions of cluster, diagnostic power of the assessment).
It is too computerish for some clinical neurology journal, not enough for some computers-in-med/bio/etc journal.
Must be #openaccess
Ofc it's a team decision, won't be based on replies, but I am an early stage researcher and I really value discussions outside my lab!
*it's an old, little known one!
**it may be argued one of the techniques is new, both seem new wrt stroke
The number of retractions issued for research articles in 2023 has passed 10,000 — smashing annual records — as publishers struggle to clean up a slew of sham papers and peer-review fraud. Among large research-producing nations, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia and China have the highest retraction rates over the past two...
Any economic anthropologists out there want to have a crack at this initiative, a system where scholars earn "review tokens," which they can exchange when they want to have their own work reviewed. It is call Reciprocal Reviews:
Note the two common errors: (1) the false assumption that all or most OA journals charge #APCs and (2) the false assumption that all paid APCs are paid by authors.
Like so many similar pieces, it's an editorial that did not undergo #PeerReview.
More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 (www.nature.com)
The number of retractions issued for research articles in 2023 has passed 10,000 — smashing annual records — as publishers struggle to clean up a slew of sham papers and peer-review fraud. Among large research-producing nations, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia and China have the highest retraction rates over the past two...