This is my brother's take on peer review. I have talked to scientists who have appreciated some of their peer reviews, and say they improved the paper, but I strongly suspect that, in the main, Aaron is correct.https://twitter.com/ahaspel/status/1404850613574328325 …
-
-
Professional and paid scientific editorial review teams seems worth a try
-
Being open to public scrutiny as part of the revision process seemed to make a major difference.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You wrote "it's really hard". Not "impossible". Any suggestions to improve the system even a tiny little bit?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I want radical openness. Posting the paper and all the data, and letting the chips fly.
-
That's a great fix for some things, but not for others. Also data sharing is very good in some areas, but when you're working with massive population health datasets it's often impossible to share even deidentified raw data
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.