Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #peerreview

Most recents (24)

Witness a new revolution in the field of #science.🚀

It's ok to be tired of the current scientific publishing system that favors gatekeepers and restricts access to knowledge because
the solution might just be here:


#Latesttrendnarrative #DeSci
#Desci leverages blockchain technology to develop scientific research and help solve scientific challenges that have tarried for long. 💯

In this thread, we'll explore what DeSci is, its benefits, and some exciting low cap projects to keep an eye on! 🤝

⚡ What is #Desci?

DeSci is a rapidly expanding initiative that encourages openness and decentralization in research.
Read 15 tweets
🧵1/12: Writing your first case report can be a rewarding experience as it allows you to contribute to medical literature and showcase your clinical expertise. Here's a step-by-step guide to get you started! #CaseReport #MedEd #MedTwitter
🧵2/12: Start by selecting an interesting or unique case that adds value to the presentation, diagnosis, or treatment of a condition. The case should provide new insights or challenge existing knowledge. #MedicalWriting #CaseSelection
🧵3/12: Look at existing literature for similar cases. If there are less than 20 cases reported on PubMed, it's a good indication that your case might be worth sharing. A thorough literature review is essential for a successful case report. #PubMed #LiteratureReview
Read 13 tweets
#VaccineDeath et #CreutzfeldtJakob :
Enfin le dernier article de #lucMontagnier RIP publié aux #USA dans le journal #peerreview IJVTPR -
Jean-Claude Perez, Claire Moret-Chalmin, Luc Montagnier
727-770 @andrebercoff
Read 3 tweets
Muy interesante el artículo sobre Javier Perona
respecto a las compañías que se lucran con el trabajo de los académicos que revisan (gratuitamente) artículos. Me ha inspirado a contar algo relacionado que llevo tiempo observando. Abro hilo...
En mi carrera habré revisado unos 30-40 artículos académicos, la mayoría (sinceramente) de poca calidad. Lo primero que he observado es que los editores de revistas ya no revisan los artículos antes de enviárselos a los revisores, es decir, nos los mandan tal cual les llegan.
De ahí que gran parte de mi tiempo se vaya en anotar incoherencias en el texto, oraciones agramaticales, errores en la bibliografía y otras cuestiones que un editor debería haber subsanado de antemano. Al menos, así se hacía (por lo general) hace unos veinte años.
Read 11 tweets
Bij elk scientific journal worden publicaties aan #PeerReview onderworpen. Dit kost zo’n 180 dagen.

Ik zie 1 #uitzondering, ver voordat WHO de pandemie uitriep, op 21-jan-2020:

#PeerReview in 1 dag… Dit artikel was dé basis voor miljarden #PCR testen.


1/n Image
Onder de auteurs ook NL wetenschappers van oa @ErasmusMC en @rivm.

Ook typisch: Eén auteur zat in de Editorial Board van @Eurosurveillanc.

Het artikel:…


Buiten dit artikel, is nooit enig artikel binnen 1 dag ‘erdoor gedrukt’. Zelfs niet bij zgn Rapid Communications.

Veel wetenschappers uitten inhoudelijk kritiek op deze vorm van testen.

Ook de @WHO zelf, waarschuwde voor Fout Positieve uitslagen.…

3/n Image
Read 9 tweets
@UweSteinhoff gilt Dank, denn er zeigt beeindruckend, dass nicht Argumente, sondern blanker Hass der Antrieb von Transfeindlichkeit, #LGBTIQ-Feindlichkeit und #TERF ist. Er agiert wie ein Verschwörungsideologe.

Woher kommt Ihr Hass, Herr Steinhoff?
@UweSteinhoff hat heute auf seinem Blog ein Pamphlet als Replik auf den lesenswerten Essay von @dana_mahr1👇veröffentlicht.

👉 Ohne Belege.
👉 Ohne #PeerReview—dort ginge sowas ja nicht durch.
👉 Ohne Etikette.

Woher kommt Ihr Hass, Herr Steinhoff?
Danke für dieses Beispiel einer Hetzschrift.

✅ Konsequent misgendert er Frau Mahr.
#PLURV ist seine Methode, darunter bevorzugt Ad-hominem-Angriffe
✅ Inhaltlich dünn—was nicht verwundert, sonst hätte er nicht so geifern müssen

Woher kommt Ihr Hass, Herr Steinhoff?
3⃣/🧵 ImageImageImageImage
Read 6 tweets
1/n September Pulmonary Fibrosis controversy thread about #IPFandGERD preprint from Dr. Cosetta Minelli's group: Two tweets from really good people say "GERD Causes IPF" (@IPFdoc, @drcjar), and a 3rd (@LungDrE) says: "Not based on your data".

Who is right?
2/n I read the preprint (…); A Mendelian Randomization (MR) study using summary stats of GERD GWAS… & IPF GWAS meta-analysis….
Shows OR of 1.6 GERD➡️IPF & 0.99 IPF➡️GERD. So what do I think?

3/n #IPFandGERD Paper obviously needs #PeerReview. But there is context.
As a non-expert, in reading Mendelian Randomization studies I go back to the superb Guide to reading Mendelian randomization studies from Prof Davey Smith & team. Especially that 👇🏼…
Read 6 tweets
Just in time for #JSM2022, our new paper has been published in the Journal of Machine Learning Research!… Elena A. Erosheva and I propose the first joint statistical model for rankings and scores (1/n)
Rankings and scores are two common types of preference data, which occur in contexts like voting, polling data, recommender systems, and peer review. Because it’s difficult to combine ordinal rankings and cardinal scores, they’re almost always modeled separately (2/n)
But rankings and scores provide different, and complementary, information! Rankings make direct comparisons but are coarse. Scores are more granular but make only implicit (and often unreliable) comparisons (3/n)
Read 8 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

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!