ScienceOpenReviewed

@_SciOR

Science Open Reviewed is a new online community of researchers promoting efficient and accountable open peer review in science.

Queen's University, Canada
science-open-reviewed.com
Joined July 2013
0 Photos and videos Photos and videos

Tweets

You blocked @_SciOR

Are you sure you want to view these Tweets? Viewing Tweets won't unblock @_SciOR

  1. Retweeted
    8 Jan 2017

    Even raw data are not objective. You took decisions about what to measure, when, where, and how.

    Data is not objective. Please stop spewing such nonsense.
    3 replies 32 retweets 57 likes
    Undo
  2. Retweeted
    2 May 2016

    I found the typology of associated with peer review useful in most recent post here: Many more solutions too.

    2 retweets 3 likes
    Undo
  3. 7 Aug 2015

    The worst piece of peer review I’ve ever received via

    4 retweets
    Undo
  4. 23 Jun 2015

    The Web Will Either Kill Science Journals or Save Them via

    1 like
    Undo
  5. 21 May 2015

    Removing the Journal Impact Factor from Faculty Evaluation via

    1 retweet 2 likes
    Undo
  6. Retweeted
    27 Mar 2015

    Why should you be a peer reviewer for journals? Read blog by Lonnie Aarssen from Queen's Univ

    10 retweets 4 likes
    Undo
  7. Retweeted
    9 Feb 2015

    Love this, a kind of peer review 'oath' - should be standard!

    5 replies 25 retweets 19 likes
    Undo
  8. 19 Sep 2014

    Open peer review is a welcome step towards transparency.

    1 retweet
    Undo
  9. 17 Sep 2014

    Why are university researchers still using commercial publishers?

    1 retweet 2 likes
    Undo
  10. 4 Aug 2014

    Why are university researchers still using commercial publishers?

    1 like
    Undo
  11. Retweeted
    23 Jun 2014

    RT : wants your feedback on metrics for research assessment. My personal thoughts

    1 reply 3 retweets 2 likes
    Undo
  12. Retweeted
    24 Jun 2014

    In 2009, Elsevier went to court to keep its subscription prices confidential. Now, we know why. Look at the spread:

    25 replies 651 retweets 228 likes
    Undo
  13. 29 May 2014

    Traditional journal editors are usually forced to settle for whoever is willing to volunteer a gratuitous peer review. Try

    1 retweet 4 likes
    Undo
  14. 28 May 2014

    Traditionally no one except the editor has knowledge of a reviewer’s credibility or track record of peer review quality. Try@_SciOR

    2 retweets 1 like
    Undo
  15. 28 May 2014

    Authors and reviewers connect and work together to improve a paper—with worthwhile rewards for both

    Undo
  16. 28 May 2014

    Tired of addiction to chasing impact factor? Science is not a mission for elitism — but a mission for discovery. Try

    1 retweet
    Undo
  17. 27 May 2014

    Blind reviewing gives power over others, to approve papers that support one’s own research & reject those that conflict Try

    1 reply 1 retweet
    Undo
  18. 27 May 2014

    Editors usually find reviewers after several others, more preferred & better qualified, have declined. Try a better way

    3 retweets 1 like
    Undo
  19. 27 May 2014

    Tired of biased poor-quality reviews from reviewers hiding behind anonymity & selected secretly by editors? Try

    Undo

@_SciOR hasn't Tweeted yet.

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.

    You may also like

    ·