2 early takeaways from this saga:
1. Chinese scientists asked @NIH NCBI database to delete deposited data containing sequences of early versions of SARS-CoV-2 virus.
2. US-based @biorxivpreprint blocked European scientists from posting their analysis of this data as a preprint.
1. Chinese scientists asked @NIH NCBI database to delete deposited data containing sequences of early versions of SARS-CoV-2 virus.
2. US-based @biorxivpreprint blocked European scientists from posting their analysis of this data as a preprint.
https://twitter.com/jbloom_lab/status/1491297779855278082
Never thought I'd ask this, but... @biorxivpreprint @cshperspectives
What is bioRxiv's gatekeeping policy when it comes to original analyses? And would you consider a more transparent approach to this gatekeeping by publishing the name of the reviewer and reason for rejection?
What is bioRxiv's gatekeeping policy when it comes to original analyses? And would you consider a more transparent approach to this gatekeeping by publishing the name of the reviewer and reason for rejection?
@biorxivpreprint @cshperspectives Although bioRxiv is not a peer review service, it still confers a certain level of credibility to the preprints it has screened.
Has the team at bioRxiv considered that now there may be conflicts of interest among its screeners that should be carefully managed?
Has the team at bioRxiv considered that now there may be conflicts of interest among its screeners that should be carefully managed?
Which one of your screeners rejected the original preprint and on what grounds?
biorxiv.org/about-biorxiv
biorxiv.org/about-biorxiv
What exactly about this original analysis was objectionable for preprinting?
assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-11770…
assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-11770…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
