Because (2) almost never happens, while (1) is a mechanism for leveling attention so every manuscript gets some?
-
-
-
(1) also provides a safe space for comments from many different perspectives & backgrounds while (2) begets comments only from those willing to do so openly (I.e., extroverted, establishes individuals).
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Peer review shouldn't take a few months. Median time to first decision for ASM journals is ~28 days. Average is ~31 days. I would never say peer review is perfect, but I can't tell you how many times I've seen it improve the product before it goes public.
#ASMjournals -
That doesn't actually answer the question though
- Još 4 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Because #2 exacerbates well-known biases against underrepresented group in a very public way that will discourage people from those groups from staying in the field. Also biases against less confident people, which largely overlaps with the above because of a lifetime of bias. 1/
-
The science world has been well aware of bias in the public and private sphere for decades, but there has been little progress in plugging the leaky pipeline. Yet many still argue there isn’t bias or don’t see it even when it is blindingly obvious. Having to point it out...3/
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
1000s of people walked away from this utterly convinced by its connection to conspiracy theories, saw none of the comments or scitwitter tweets, and will not the retraction. If they did see them, it was "complicated science on both sides". It's a system failure, not a win.
-
And that’s what we need to fix. Preprint or traditional process, this type of reports/manuscripts/articles need to stop
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Because 2 rarely happens and making generalizations based on exceptions is really really really bad.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
Not better, just different. The bogus information is still spreading credibly. They aren't reading or understanding these critical comments. This isn't to say preprints are bad, but this event should point to a weakness that should be addressed.
-
Is there an example of someone posting a link to the bioRxiv manuscript somewhere and claiming it's credible because it's on bioRxiv?
- Još 3 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
)
Explain to me again why is 1 >> 2?