I'm hoping that one effect of the pandemic is that journals will start publishing peer reviews so that readers can quickly grasp the strengths and weaknesses of each paper.
Without published peer reviews, we need to rely on experts critiquing papers on twitter every weekend.
Without published peer reviews, we need to rely on experts critiquing papers on twitter every weekend.
https://twitter.com/VirusesImmunity/status/1335278168584884227
Peer reviews are performed by other experts in the same or similar fields, who spend hours to days reading and critiquing a paper.
This is real work. By highly skilled experts. That is also unpaid, no tangible incentives. Yet, not published unless a journal has open peer review.
This is real work. By highly skilled experts. That is also unpaid, no tangible incentives. Yet, not published unless a journal has open peer review.
It costs next to nothing to publish peer reviews online or as a supplementary file. But the value! Even people outside the field can see what questions the experts asked, were these addressed in the revisions? Were reviews fair, totally overboard, or negligent (just publish it)?
I'm really looking forward to peer reviews of preprints. I get requests every couple of days to comment on preprints or peer-reviewed papers - but this realistically is a time sink and I only choose to do it when I think the paper is genuinely interesting or especially important.
Otherwise I won't have time to do actual peer reviews and write my own papers.
This is why I believe that peer reviews (all that hard work and expertise) should all be published. Authors should also have the option to take peer reviews with them to the next journal if rejected.
This is why I believe that peer reviews (all that hard work and expertise) should all be published. Authors should also have the option to take peer reviews with them to the next journal if rejected.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
