We have presented ing.grid at E-Science-Tage 2025! Find our poster titled "ing.grid: Bridging the Troubled Waters of Peer Review – Towards Openness, Fairness and F.A.I.R.ness" here.
Poster: https://doi.org/10.11588/heidok.00036267
#OpenScience #FAIRdata #PeerReview #ResearchDataManagement
Board eines Journals erwartet weitere revisions die ich für völlig überflüssig halte. Was tun:
"I wish you all the best with the revision."
What a nice way to end a review!
Whatever criticism you may have and however you may think the manuscript might need to be improved to be publishable, you can always afford to be kind to the author.
And remember, even if the review is double blind, the editor knows who you are, so don't be a dick, OK?
What will most transform #ScholComm in the next 10 years? A new survey of 90 #ECRs from 7 countries gives first place to #AI, followed closely by #OpenAccess and #OpenScience, followed by changes to #PeerReview.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/leap.2008
While respondents thought AI would trigger more change than OA and OS, they were split on whether those changes would be good or bad. They were more united on the benefits of OA and OS.
I like this summary of the views of the Spanish respondents: "They believe that the much heralded new open and collaborative system is only possible if the evaluation of researchers changes and considers more than citations and includes altmetrics, publication in open platforms, repositories and so on."
Update. "Peer review is a cornerstone of academic publishing, but essentially no formal training exists at the [undergraduate] or graduate medical education levels to prepare trainees for participation in the process as authors or reviewers. This clinical research primer presents an introductory set of guidelines and pearls to empower trainee participation in the peer-review process as both authors and reviewers."
https://www.thieme-connect.de/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/a-2554-2357
Here’s an unamusing story.
I finished writing a double-blind peer review for an academic journal. Then, on a whim, I fed my review into a large language model. Below is an (abbreviated) account of what happened next.
Me:
What is your best guess as to who I am, based on the contents of the review?
1/8
#PeerReview #LLM #AI #academia #AcademicChatter @academicchatter
Here is our new #CallForPapers #CfP for the upcoming Summer Issue No.43 of the Journal for #Deradicalization! Spread the word and send in your ideas! Learn more via journal-derad.com #PCVE #PeerReview #openacess
Publishers trial paying peer reviewers — what did they find? https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00968-6
Would like to see trials/research on free publications in exchange for peer review. APC's are too expensive for most southern hemisphere countries...
"For scientists, imagining a world without arXiv is like the rest of us imagining one without public libraries or GPS. But a look at its inner workings reveals that it isn’t a frictionless utopia of open-access knowledge. Over the years, arXiv’s permanence has been threatened by everything from bureaucratic strife to outdated code to even, once, a spy scandal. In the words of Ginsparg, who usually redirects interview requests to an FAQ document—on arXiv, no less—and tried to talk me out of visiting him in person, arXiv is “a child I sent off to college but who keeps coming back to camp out in my living room, behaving badly.”
Ginsparg and I met over the course of several days last spring in Ithaca, New York, home of Cornell University. I’ll admit, I was apprehensive ahead of our time together. Geoffrey West, a former supervisor of Ginsparg’s at Los Alamos National Laboratory, once described him as “quite a character” who is “infamous in the community” for being “quite difficult.” He also said he was “extremely funny” and a “great guy.” In our early email exchanges, Ginsparg told me, upfront, that stories about arXiv never impress him: “So many articles, so few insights,” he wrote."
https://www.wired.com/story/inside-arxiv-most-transformative-code-science/
Liebe Editor*innen, Conference Chairs und akademische Verleger*innen – wenn ihr wissenschaftliche Arbeiten zur doppelblinden anonymen #PeerReview-Begutachtung verschickt, achtet doch bitte darauf, dass die PDF-Dateien keine Metadaten enthalten, aus denen man die Namen oder Zugehörigkeiten der Autor*innen ablesen kann.
Ansonsten weiß man halt, wer das Paper geschrieben hat und die ganze weitere Anoymisierung ist für die Katz.
Vielen Dank an alle.
Update. Michael Szell (@mszll) will no longer review for #RoyalSociety journals, and has shared his review-decline message. Good move.
https://fediscience.org/@mszll@datasci.social/114245973896435127
An interesting review of a trial involving paying people who #PeerReview papers for publication.
".... found that paying for reviews moderately improved both the number of accepted invitations and the speed at which reviews were carried out. Some 53% of researchers accepted the invitation to review when offered payment, compared with 48% of those who received a standard, non-paid offer. "
New #OpenAccess publication in the spotlight:
Intramolecular feedback regulation of the LRRK2 Roc G domain by a LRRK2 kinase-dependent mechanism
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.91083.4
We talked to one of the #authors, Arjan Kortholt from our faculty of #Science and #Engineering, about the article, preprints, open #PeerReview, open access, and #OpenScience in general.
Read more on our Open Science #Blog: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/blog/open-access-publication-in-the-spotlight-intramolecular-feedback-regulation-of-the-lrrk2-roc-g-do
In our spring newsletter, "Pack your Data", we introduce MaRDI’s new service for researchers, MaPS. Easily package your software environment so fellow researchers or referees can replicate it with just a few commands. Explore this and much more here: http://t1p.de/0da4d #OpenScience #PeerReview #ResearchData #MaRDI
Freude! Neue Publikation:
Jan Horstmann, Martin de la Iglesia, Caroline Jansky & Timo Steyer (2025). „Qualität im Diamond Open Access: 10 Jahre Zeitschrift für digitale Geisteswissenschaften.“ O-Bib. Das Offene Bibliotheksjournal 12(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.5282/o-bib/6127
"Peer review is the worst method of safeguarding scientific integrity, except for all those other methods that have been tried from time to time." As Churchill might have said if he'd been a scientist rather than a politician.
From a conversation with a friend: https://theconversation.com/peer-review-is-meant-to-prevent-scientific-misconduct-but-it-has-its-own-problems-248015
There are a lot of flaws in #peerreview as it's generally done now, and people working to improve it. But what's the alternative to the concept itself? We know what general public #commentary on #science looks like, and politicians shoehorning science into their #ideologies, and science for #profit without checks on validity ... they're all awful.
None of them can be completely avoided either, any more than the potent combination of authoritarianism and stupidity which is always trying to infect #democratic forms of #government. (Just to choose a random example.) And in fact there *should* be input into science from outside the field, because it doesn't exist in a vacuum any more than defense or education or business or religion or any other large-scale area of human endeavour.
But if there's a better way to keep science more or less on track, I'll be damned if I know what it is. The only people qualified to judge the work of scientists—not the big-picture priorities, and not the utility of the results, but the nitty-gritty of the work itself—are other people knowledgeable in the same line of work, and I don't see that changing. Same as any other job, really.
Like I said above, there are proposals for addressing peer review's flaws, and I'll be happy to expound on that if anyone likes.
Revising an academic journal paper, at that stage of needing to cut many hundreds of words to get back under the word count after adding things per reviewer feedback. Being really brutal in places! Also giving a Paddington Bear hard stare at the remaining new footnotes still to be filled in. Or cut! 400 words down, 600 to go ... #Academia #PaddingtonBear #AcademicWriting #Journal #PeerReview
Peer-Review in der #Rechtswissenschaft bedeutet für mich: ... ?
Mit dem Stichwort „#Feedback“ wollen wir die letzte Umfrage der Interview-Reihe zum #Kurzlehrbuch #Sozialrecht bei #OpenRewi starten.
Was verbindet ihr mit (Peer-)Review-Prozessen in der Rechtswissenschaft?
Welche Feedbackmöglichkeiten nutzt ihr?
Our open review process ensures transparency in academic publishing. Sterre Leufkens (Utrecht University) highlights the impact of Tan Arda Gedik’s work, emphasizing the need for better metrics in language acquisition research. Her assessment is publicly available, reinforcing the value of open and rigorous evaluation.
Read the article: https://doi.org/10.25189/2675-4916.2025.V6.N2.ID785
(Belatedly) An important read if you #PeerReview in #DevBio & related fields. Key points:
1) 'Mechanism' shouldn't have to mean 'molecular mechanism':
"‘... when focusing on a process at the scale of the organism, we are expected to go to molecular detail... However, when people work on a molecule they are not expected to move scales up to the organism level...’
2) Peturbation shouldn't always be required:
"observation-based work can also yield mechanistic insight"
