Interesting study: It only takes a small fraction of nepotistic or selfish reviewers to lower peer review standards to that expected by pure chance. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1140%2Fepjb%2Fe2011-20545-7.pdf … I'm convinced more than ever that PR needs to become more openly collaborativehttps://twitter.com/Protohedgehog/status/1032784817824325632 …
@PsychRabble of relevance to your calculations in the Politics of Soc Sci book.
-
-
Tagging
@jayvanbavel,@siminevazire,@clairlemon,@lakens here. On how little it takes (as per simulation of bad actors) to undermine quality of peer review. (link in thread above).pic.twitter.com/pIhs6BcYev
-
I recently had an encyclopaedia article peer reviewed by a named person. Sent me her comments, a couple of drafts back and forth. All done in a friendly and collaborative way. If anonymised review has no benefits then this seems a better way.
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.