U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
In the last years, I have tried to always publish data and code openly, as far as possible. Just received this comment from a reviewer, who did not appreciate the value of doing so: (1/n)pic.twitter.com/sXESlgDhi3
This makes me reflect: I have never had data or code peer-reviewed, except in data articles, even though the data and the code are supposedly what give credence to my claims. Instead, what is reviewed is the manuscript containing my narrative interpretation of the results (2/n)
Does this not suggest that peer review is less of a quality control mechanism and more of a barrier to presenting claims that contradict prevailing theories? (3/n)
I, for one, would be happy to get rid of the peer review theater, which creates an illusion of quality certification, but which is slow, capricious, and hinders progress, in favour of letting authors stand for their own work and doing systematic post-publication review. (4/4)
Do you know if this journal compensates folks for their time reviewing articles, as a proper code-review can be time consuming work?
I am almost certain the journal offers no compensation. And I agree with you - in fact I do sympathize with the reviewer to an extent. They are acting rationally in a system that lacks proper quality control mechanisms and incentives.
what an insane response by the reviewer, wow
I can sympathise with someone feeling that they are being implicitly asked to endorse the code since it's included by reference into the paper.
It seems like this is not very well known, but some journals *require* that analytic code be independently run and shown to verify the results.https://ajps.org/ajps-verification-policy/ …
Yes! This is one of the few examples I know of where a scientific journal really adds value to the publishing process.
We toyed with having "statistical reviewers" at the Journal of Social Psychology but realised it would be extraordinarily difficult with the current volunteer reviewer system (even with an open data policy). With @JonGrahe
I would. LOVE to have 15-20 reviewers who only looked at the statistics. Not all of them; just papers with complex results.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
