Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #reviewer2
Most recents (14)
Webinar on @ipums data @popdatatech @nhgis @ipumsi and I am probably forgetting their other accounts - human population data… 
… geographic data @dcvanriper …
1/n
Our paper is out. Finally.
For me, the most important Mobile Brain/Body Imaging paper thus far.
And the most personal paper of my career.
rdcu.be/cxJHb
This is a rant.
A rant about science.
A rant about life.
And everything in between.
Our paper is out. Finally.
For me, the most important Mobile Brain/Body Imaging paper thus far.
And the most personal paper of my career.
rdcu.be/cxJHb
This is a rant.
A rant about science.
A rant about life.
And everything in between.
2/n
In 2015 we started working on this project attempting to demonstrate the potential impact the Mobile Brain/Body Imaging (MoBI) approach can have.
Showing how multimodal sensory information originating from movement is an essential part of cognitive processes.
In 2015 we started working on this project attempting to demonstrate the potential impact the Mobile Brain/Body Imaging (MoBI) approach can have.
Showing how multimodal sensory information originating from movement is an essential part of cognitive processes.
3/n
We used a spatial orientation task (heading computation) to compare results from established neuroimaging methods (fMRI, M/EEG) that restrict participants’ movements during spatial orientation with full-body movements.
Thanks to @DFG to fund ambitious research like this.
We used a spatial orientation task (heading computation) to compare results from established neuroimaging methods (fMRI, M/EEG) that restrict participants’ movements during spatial orientation with full-body movements.
Thanks to @DFG to fund ambitious research like this.
Attending #RSS2021Conf this morning?
Check out our Professional Development session on peer reviewing for clinical journals
10:50am, Exchange 11 and online
@I_M_Stratton @ebhcmedstats @MonaKanaan3 @CateyBunce @sjn_16 @RSSAnnualConf
Check out our Professional Development session on peer reviewing for clinical journals
10:50am, Exchange 11 and online
@I_M_Stratton @ebhcmedstats @MonaKanaan3 @CateyBunce @sjn_16 @RSSAnnualConf
Starting now! Our first speaker is @I_M_Stratton, reflecting on her passion for peer reviewing for clinical journals and the inspiration for this session
Next, our #Medical section chair @MonaKanaan3 sharing some real peer review comments she has received. How dare she use so many complicated statistics?! 🤯
I asked #AcademicChatter about incentives & processes behind paper machines (i.e., researchers publishing top-venue papers at unusually high rates).
This is what I learned 🧵
TL;DR: Any incentive emerges from our community values. It is not "them" who needs to change. It is us.
This is what I learned 🧵
TL;DR: Any incentive emerges from our community values. It is not "them" who needs to change. It is us.
It was tremendously exciting to get so many perspectives from so many junior and senior researchers across different disciplines. This was only a random curiosity of mine but it seemed to hit a nerve. I loved the positive, constructive tone in the thread.
Let's get started.
2/12
Let's get started.
2/12
Some of you raised serious concerns about academic misconduct. However, to keep the discussion constructive, let's assume researcher integrity. We'll explore alternative explanations and processes below.
3/12
3/12
Ask scientists about peer review, and you’ll get… a lot of things. Boundary work (the institution grounds all scholarship), appreciation (collegial quality control=more rigorous work), and many dark sides (ie it's unreliable, unfair, unpaid, unequal, and done by #reviewer2) 1/19
Let me start here-I've internalized the boundary work. I believe in peer review, for all its imperfections. I think it is among things setting science apart. I've also spend lots of time on it, including dealing with 600+ manuscripts as journal editor, based on ~1000 reviews 2/19
But while important, peer review is not the ONLY thing that define science. Many different norms and institutions together define us. As Ziman writes: “peculiarity of science is that knowledge as such is deemed to be its principle product and purpose” cambridge.org/core/books/rea… 3/19
How I think about the academic writing process.
An #AcWri thread in gifs with parenting refs - b/c writing is a lot like watching your child grow up.
An #AcWri thread in gifs with parenting refs - b/c writing is a lot like watching your child grow up.
First comes the baby draft. Anyone who’s had a child in their life knows that along with the joys of a new baby, there’s a whole lot of crap too. It’s no different for writing. Consider this your shitty draft. ALL writing starts here.
Next comes your toddler draft. Nothing makes sense and initial excitement about writing this piece has more or less disappeared. You’re wondering why you did this to yourself and when this will ever end...
In #atmoschem, collaborative field & lab campaigns are a great way to move science questions forward. But these studies create challenges for credit and coauthorship. Following conversations with @chemdelphine, here are a few thoughts about collaborative writing #academicchatter
1. In general, err on the side of generosity. People should be rewarded for their efforts. Lab and field measurements take a LOT of work - even operating commercial instruments requires extensive preparation, calibration, troubleshooting, and data analysis.
2. Coauthors should make meaningful contributions to a paper and authors should provide others with an opportunity to do so. Data collection often warrants co-authorship, but measurement makers should still contribute directly to the science by providing meaningful feedback
Since @AsifaAkhtar1 and @Feli_Bas summarized the science already , I am keeping it with a personal thread through our revision process from initial Submission to Publication - so proud of this work! nature.com/articles/s4158…
10. May 2019 - submitted 🙂
A new job, a #pig, a pregnancy, a move, a pandemic, 5(6) rev and many #pampers later, I’m delighted to share my co-first authorship with @KellerValsecchi in the @AsifaAkhtar1 lab today in @nature. Thread below for summary nature.com/articles/s4158…
In this crazy journey we reconstituted the minimal #Drosophila requirements to achieve #Xchromosome targeting
We systematically asked the hierarchical interdependencies of the known MSL complex members to understand the contribution of #DNAmotif, #interaction_partners and #evolutionary determinants in the process of targeting the single male #Xchromosome for transcriptional upregulation
I want to describe the peer review process for my most recent publication because this is how peer review is supposed to work. #MedEd jaci-inpractice.org/article/S2213-…
I’ve been working intensely on PPE supply chain problems and alternative approaches to keep workers safe and developed familiarity with the existing literature and guidance from @CDCgov and @EPA. I had the opportunity to help directly and also got questions from around the US
I sent an inquiry by email to see if the journal would be interested in an atypical review article (citing literature but also policies and personal experience) and was allowed to submit it as an editorial. It was reviewed by an Editor and two anonymous reviewers.
Just had this thought after conversing with some fellow Black colleagues in academe about hostility we have (and continue to) face on the job. So, to my Black fam in academe, many of you work in units where the knees of white supremacy are constantly on your necks. They put...
put their knees on your necks because they know the structure in academe encourages and incentivizes anti-Blackness. Yet, some of those culprits who dare seek to block your joy and contribution will attempt to send calls of action to your unit listservs, etc., demanding...
that your dept makes a statement, or etc. Understand, you’re duty-bound to reject these overtures – they’re insincere and phony #NotWithMyName. Especially if these colleagues have yet to repent. Again, #NotWithMyName! Sometimes all we have left is our dignity, and we should...
I have no doubt missed many examples of how the dreaded #Reviewer2 would have responded to some of the great works of the past but these are the result of an idling mind on a Friday afternoon.
I would recommend that Mr Plato takes out the section on caves. Hard to see what this adds to his argument. While considerations of outreach and impact are to be encouraged his suggestions on an academic role in political leadership may invite controversy. #Reviewer2
Mr Machiavelli offers a model of how dictators stay in power but his sample size is far too small and he unaccountably fails to deal with the Democratic Peace literature. I attach some references. #Reviewer2
I always liked personal journals as framing devices for Romantic or Gothic horror novels like in Dracula and Frankenstein. I decided to write a satirical thread using this same device but for a common #scientific #journey:
Personal Journal of Dr. Nicholas Gladman
-Day 1-
Our scientific voyage began this afternoon. I am excited for what we shall discover and observe. #Manuscript first draft almost complete. Weird dark clouds on the horizon but sure it is normal.
-Day 1-
Our scientific voyage began this afternoon. I am excited for what we shall discover and observe. #Manuscript first draft almost complete. Weird dark clouds on the horizon but sure it is normal.
-Day 2-
Manuscript sent to co-authors for initial thoughts and edits. Am hopeful for quick turnover and minimal comments. Anderson died of freak roof collapse but I’m sure that doesn’t portend anything sinister.
Manuscript sent to co-authors for initial thoughts and edits. Am hopeful for quick turnover and minimal comments. Anderson died of freak roof collapse but I’m sure that doesn’t portend anything sinister.
I am embarking on my own #PaperPerDayChallenge where I read at least one paper, well, per day for a whole year. To kick start, nature.com/articles/43573… inspired by @ukrepro Reproducibility Workshop @CumberlandLodge and a talk by @MarcusMunafo
Paper #2: Hard not be cynical about advocates of reproducibile science given most have careers built on the very questionable practices they wish to stamp out, so great to see @russpoldrack tackling this head on and offering great advice along the way 👍 ac.els-cdn.com/S0896627318310…
Paper #3 - false positives from multiple testing in anovas and importance of distinguishing exploratory and confirmatory hypotheses — also I thought anovas corrected for Multiple testing and this paper shows so too do many others, I’m not the only idiot! link.springer.com/content/pdf/10…
