Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #peerreview

Most recents (24)

K, as news of The Paper (and fallout) filters outside #anthrotwitter, I think it's worth considering this was a failure on multiple levels not just QR's #PeerReview.

Ex: The Society for Visual Anth awarded him "Best Student Film" in 2021, for the same thing. Society for Visual Anthropo...
I'm not pleased to draw more attention to this, knowing there's a good chance it will hinder my own work.

I'm angry. I know so many who got rejected for lifting up voices that deserved to be heard, while this... whatever it is made the cut, repeatedly.

I keep seeing retweets of critiques that say things like "serious lack of self-reflexivity" or "inept methodology".

I gotta ask, why is anyone giving him the benefit of the doubt? Why were so many people who found out about this paper critiquing it like it was any other essay?
Read 13 tweets
« En science, comme dans la vie, les surprises et détails les plus intéressants viennent souvent de choses secrètes, qui ne voient jamais la lumière du jour.
Je pense que le temps est désormais venu de révéler une de ces 'secrets'.
À propos de l'OMS @WHO & du mot 'aéroporté'. 🧵

Repensez à 2021

Nous sommes dans un déni que le continu Covid est Aéroporté
☣️Tweet de l'OMS « Ce n'est PAS aéroporté » de mars 2020
✅Réponse des scientifiques des aérosols Juillet 2020
☣️Travail réactionnaire de l'OMS COVID19 IPC basé sur une fiction biaisée, juillet 2020, niant la transmission aérienne au-delà des AGP
Read 35 tweets
1/6 I think that a #DeSci economy that covers all aspects of #academia in one ecosystem (#publications, #peerreview, and #funding) is more valuable and more likely to succeed in the long run than a project that covers only one or two of these aspects. Why? ...
2/6 Because of #networkeffects. All three parts of academia co-depend and influence each other. There are positive network externalities to solving problems in publishing, peer review, and funding to other parts of #academia. ...
3/6 And if such an integrated #DeSci solution helps to reward #scientists more fairly, solve their #funding problems, and raise the standards of #peerreview and #publications, every #scientist would want to be a part of it. ...
Read 6 tweets
In science, as in life, the most interesting details & surprises often come from secrets; what's never seen the light of day

I think now's the right time for one such 'secret' to be revealed

It concerns @WHO teams, & the word 'airborne'


Cast your mind back to 2021

We're in ongoing #COVIDisAirborne denial

☣️WHO 'It's NOT airborne' tweet Mar 2020
✅Pushback from aerosol scientists July 2020
☣️WHO reactionary COVID19 IPC work of bias fiction, July 2020, denying airborne transmission beyond AGPs

Mar 2021: WHO 'Living Systematic Review' is lauded as THE ANSWER

Heneghan, Conly, Jefferson et al conclude:

'The lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS2 prevents firm conclusions from being drawn about airborne transmission'


Read 24 tweets
🥂 “#Conservation research & discursive violence: a response to two rejoinders”, co-authored with Stasja Koot & Paul Hebinck, is back online 🥂

It was removed by @tandfonline a day after publication in Dec2021, for reasons unclear to us 😶…
@tandfonline @PolEcoNet @PCLG_IIED @cep_of @BathSpaResearch @SDC_WUR 3/ Our re-published Response follows 2 Rejoinders to a peer reviewed Review Article published online in Society & Natural Resources @info_iasnr, in May 2020 👇

I am 3rd author on this paper: the 2 lead authors – S. Koot, P. Hebinck – are not on twitter…
Read 25 tweets
Many #ECRs are anxious when they start reviewing for the first time. One of the challenges is how to write up the #PeerReview report (PRR).

Here's a thread that we hope will help 🧵 Reads: How can I write a pe...
In our experience, peer reviewers’ questions include:

*How should I structure the report?
*What should I focus on?
*How can I write a constructive report?
This thread is based on our paper in @HERDJournal, which is available Open Access at…

In the paper, we report on an analysis of the content and structure of our own peer review reports (n=62).

(We are @Shan__Mason and @sinwangchong)
Read 16 tweets
It's easy to include broader impacts in your research with the "coding for broader impact" framework developed by students @TempleUniv in @ESAFrontiers (1/4)…
#DataScience #coding #ClimateCrisis #Sustainability #environmental #RStats
Coding for broader impact addresses key challenges to effective public communication by developing personalized stakeholder reports along side tasks needed for publishing a paper (2/4) #publicspeaking #STEMeducation #peerreview #science #publishorperish
The #rstats coding for broader impact workflow is in this repository (3/4)
Read 6 tweets
I recently had a paper accepted. As a researcher of 10+ years, I've been lucky to have a lot of work published. Through this, I've participated in lots of peer review.

Today I'd love to take you through an example of how not to do #PeerReview. 1/x
I'm used to constructive criticism and feedback. I'm very used to rejection as well. I experience it on both side as both a researcher and an associate editor. But there is a good way to go about it.

This example involved a paper with five colleagues, but also four trainees. 2/x
Trainees where this was their first experience in academic writing, publishing, and peer review. They worked with us on a research rotation experience. Let's keep that in mind as we explore this review. 3/x
Read 28 tweets

Après avoir un peu récupéré de l'intense session d'approbation du résumé pour décideurs du rapport du groupe III du #GIEC, je voudrais partager quelques réflexions.

D'abord, sur le contexte de ce rapport.
🧵⬇️ Image
C'est un rapport préparé depuis 3 ans par 278 scientifiques de 65 pays différents.
Voici la liste des auteurs du rapport, avec une diversité d'affiliations (la plupart du secteur académique, quelques uns d'entreprises privées et d'ONG) :…
Pour chaque scientifique, vous pouvez d'ailleurs accéder facilement à leur liste de publications dans les journaux scientifiques, par exemple via
Cela permet de différencier une personnalité qui exprime une opinion d'un travail scientifique (peer-review)
Read 42 tweets
The massive amount of positive attention that our article has been getting has forced me to reflect a bit on the process of getting this thing published

This has by far been the hardest paper to get published in my career to date…

A boring thread:
I first presented this work at @SEBiology back in 2019 in Seville - what a brilliant conference

Photo credit: @Craig_R_White
Soon after, we submitted (a much shorter version of) this paper to Nature as a Comment - after a month and a half, the paper was desk rejected
Read 14 tweets
Tips for authors and publishers to foster interaction with #OAbooks – a weekly COPIM 🧵 series

Chapter 1️⃣: open #annotation can enrich a document by enabling multifaceted conversation between a text and its audience.

Kicking off this showcase with @hypothes_is – this #opensource project has evolved out of years of work undertaken in conjunction with the @w3c Web Annotation WG, and is nowadays featured in a variety of #openpublishing & #openeducation projects. #socialannotation

On a 🛠 technical level, a provision of plugins helps with the integration of functionality in a variety of platforms such as @WordPress, @omeka, or @pkp's Open Monograph System - platforms that are also used for #OAbook publishing

Read 20 tweets
#MedStudents, #Residents, #Fellows, and #Research Trainees - I recently had both a resident and fellow ask me how I got involved in research and published when I was a #trainee. I thought I would share my tips and advice in this thread. #MedTwitter #ACGME #MedStudentTwitter
1. Ask yourself👉what you want from this? To pursue research as career? To boost application for #residency #fellowship #employment? To get a recommendation letter? Regardless, aim for #publication (most value). Conference talks are cool, but publications stay on CV forever!
2. Basic science research=⬆️time+lab training vs clinical research. Study designs: RCTs, prospective, retrospective, case reports, review papers. Publishing case reports+review papers are most feasible endeavors during training! Best way to boost #publication numbers.
Read 22 tweets
1/9 Identification of "meaningful change" is a key area when working w patient-reported outcomes. Nevertheless, this seems to be another area of applied #psychometrics / #statistics where rituals may have replaced understanding & deliberate practice.

🧵 w some QLR-promotion😊😅
2/9 w QLR's special issue on "Methodologies & Considerations for Meaningful Change" (under #peerreview) we wanted to initiate a more deliberate approach, now rolled out to any paper submitted aiming to make a methodological contribution to this area👇

#Epistemology #Ontology Image
3/9 An area of concern are discussions around different indices, in particular for classifying intra-individual change: depending on interpretation/ use case, they are all likely not appropriate as they are based on between-indiv variation.

Progress is then not even incremental.
Read 9 tweets
Want to know how best to respond to Journal #peerreview? This thread will show you my 12 Golden Rules based on my experience as an Editor, Reviewer and publishing my own articles #AcademicChatter #phdchat #phdforum

@DeakinIPAN Image
Read 13 tweets
“email chain shows editor Shan Lu telling two of the authors he would share a “secret” with them — that Taylor & Francis could become “very suspicious” when he pushed “a super fast review and accept (basically no review)”.” #OriginsOfCovid #PeerReview…
We now have at least 2 virologists, who published anti-lab origin articles in top scientific journals, deleting their Twitter accounts after emails implicating them were FOI’ed by @USRightToKnow and @BuzzFeed

This does not inspire trust in science. It’s a loss for humanity.
I don’t know what other scientists think while observing this pattern of scientists having conflicting public and private opinions about the possibility of SARS2 having come from a lab, engineered or not.

For me, it’s discouraging. The scientific gatekeeping system is corrupt.
Read 7 tweets
Harald Walach, a German parapsychologist, has published two high-impact peer-reviewed papers exaggerating the risks of COVID vaccines & of wearing masks. Very dangerous.

Closed, one-pass #peerreview fails at modern scales of paper production & disinformation propagation. /1
The first paper, discouraging vaccinations, was published in _Vaccines_.

It was retracted, five editors resigned, and Walach's university ended his appointment for potentially 'lead[ing] to public harm', but not before the paper got 500,000 views.…
The 2d paper, discouraging masking for children, was published in @JAMAPediatrics. It had fatal flaws in theory, design, & data gathering; and (again) drew conclusions that could lead to public harm.

It has 550,000 views, + has not yet been retracted. /3
Read 5 tweets
Vaccination (COVID) et Leucémie : a #thread
#Disclamer avant de commencer : je ne suis pas un professionnel de la santé. Je ne suis pas infirmier, ni encore moins médecin.
Juste prof d’informatique en lycée (et — au stage de fin d’études près [#harcelement] — ingénieur en EII, donc scientifique, bien que n’étant pas chercheur ou universitaire).
Read 52 tweets
Just got to read through the pre-print of COVAXIN phase 3 trial. Yes, it's reassuring that the efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 is 77.8% and over 65% Delta variant. But, as a reader, I always wish to review through the methodology before interpreting the results (1/n)
Authors have defined symptomatic COVID-19 case as presence of at least two of the selected symptoms. It was not clear from the article whether an individual with only one symptom and tested positive was included in the analysis. Also, no definition given for severe COVID-19 (2/n)
It was not clear why only one Nasopharyngeal swab was taken among symptomatic individuals. Will both of these affect study result? It may affect. The study reports higher CT value in vaccine group. In that case, there may be lesser chance of detecting the virus among (3/n)
Read 10 tweets
1/ Joining some wonderful people from what I am seeing as a diverse group of researchers at the #EditorialBoard of @PLOSGPH; journal has given itself the tall order of “addresses inequities in public health and makes impactful research accessible to all… (1/n) #Threads
2/ In words of @paimadhu "the journal will amplify the voices of underrepresented and historically excluded communities and prioritize equity, diversity, and inclusion at all levels"; I am highly skeptical of this,
3/ yet I am thrilled that a #PublicHealth journal would give itself such a vision; #Knowledge #Science #Evidence all reproduce the same kind of social hierarchies that drive unfair accumulation of resources in our society
Read 12 tweets
Es gibt aber noch jede Menge anderer Gelegenheiten, Gutachten zu verfassen, z.B. für zur Veröffentlichung vorgesehene Publikationen. Das können ganze Bücher sein - in den Genuss kommt man als Reihenherausgeber*in (ich bin in drei Editorial Boards), Beiträge in Sammelbänden oder
Artikel für Zeitschriften. Begutachtet wird #doubleblind (Gutachter*in und Autor*innen werden nicht benannt), #singleblind (Gutachter*in weiß, wer der*die Verfasser*innen sind - so ist das übrigens auch bei Drittmittelanträgen) und #open #PeerReview (beide Seiten wissen
voneinander). Weil @ferdinandsnotes, @mdanganh und ich nicht nur unsere Leidenschaft für #Medienlinguistik teilen, sondern auch unsere Faible für Transparenz, haben wir vor drei Jahren das @jfml_journal gegründet. Das Bild zeigt das Logo der...
Read 9 tweets
Wieso ist #PeerReview eigentlich so verlernt worden??
#PLURV //Thread 🧵//
Herr @ChanasitJonas bezieht sich auf die Stellungnahme der #DGPI& #DGKH,die schon bzgl. des angeblichen Österreichischen Erfolgs so danebengelegen haben.…
Schauen wir Details an:
1. DGPI beziehen sich auf die _Gesamtheit_ der "Kinder und Jugendlichen", nicht auf die Infizierten. Und dazu _schätzen_ sie deren Zahl aber nur.

Click zum @destatis unterbleibt genauso, wie Hinweis, dass diese aber eben noch nicht infiziert waren.…
2. Da sich deren hauseigene Survey auf "Kinder & Jugendliche 0-19 Jahre" bezieht, sollte man auch deren Zahl korrekt angeben:
15,3 Mio sind es sogar (link oben).
9% Unterschied - guter Start.
Read 36 tweets

Related hashtags

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!