Biomedical scientists! Have you ever publicly posted reviews of a manuscript?
-
Show this thread
-
Not that this is scientific, but wanted to frame this issue:pic.twitter.com/2oDAjsU4lx
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @AngryCardio
Atomsk's Sanakan Retweeted Atomsk's Sanakan
Re: "Not that this is scientific, but wanted to frame this issue:" Sort of cowardly to hide this from whom you're tweeting about. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised coming from an
@TheEliKlein fan.
Finally finished misrepresenting?https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1439088987918979074 …Atomsk's Sanakan added,
Atomsk's Sanakan @AtomsksSanakanReplying to @AngryCardio @JReinerMD @martinmckeeI know: - contents of the article is garbage, + the sort of thing competent peer review rejects - the authors didn't post the reviews (as far as I know) - they use pre-print to evade bad reviews - you misrepresented the tweet - the tweet is a follow-up: https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1439088138790580226 … pic.twitter.com/foqOCOCDaS1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Maybe,
@AngryCardio, you should have included the context about posting a garbage article on a pre-print server after it was rejected 3 times, with distortions that competent peer review would have easily caught. That too inconvenient for you to mention? https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1438298708634972160 …pic.twitter.com/KBCvywbSz5
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AtomsksSanakan @TheEliKlein
I will have to thank
@GidMK for answering my poll.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I do public reviews all the time, but did not answer the poll
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Joking, dude.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I don't get it, apologies
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
No sweat—you were brought in late. Some folks are complaining about the recent COVID vaccine myocarditis preprint because is was apparently rejected 3 times & reviewed were not posted. I said I never heard of posting manuscript reviews; you were used as an example of it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Not posting the reviews depends on context - not responding to the reviews is weirder. The question to me is whether the authors took the comments on board or if the posted preprint is mostly unchanged because that would be less than ideal
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
If I'm really honest, I think open review is usually the best way to go and there's no real reason the authors could not include the reviews and their responses as a supplementary on medrxiv. That would completely remove any controversy 
-
-
As you well know, facts & information do little to remove controversy.
That said, the preprint can be judged on its own merits. I could care less what some other “reviewers” thought of it.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Health Nerd Retweeted Health Nerd
I agree and disagree. It's a issue if people are using preprints as a workaround to peer review because they can't get the paper in anywhere. That being said, the paper can definitely be judged on its own meritshttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1437241913677991937?s=19 …
Health Nerd added,
Health NerdVerified account @GidMKThis preprint looking at the risk of vaccine-related side-effects vs COVID-19 infections for children has received a lot of attention, and people have been asking my opinions on it. So, a few thoughts 1/n https://twitter.com/TracyBethHoeg/status/1435796377188003841 …Show this thread0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
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.