You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Wow, this tweet is blowing up 
If you’re frustrated with the traditional publication system, check out our @hertzpodcast episode on @thePeerJ https://soundcloud.com/everything-hertz/48-breaking-up-with-the-impact-factor-with-jason-hoyt … and our our episode on the new @Meta_Psy journalhttps://soundcloud.com/everything-hertz/59-rethinking-the-scientific-journal-with-rickard-carlsson …
So I do editorial work at Frontiers Physiology, rejection rate is 30%, science is expected to be correct, not required to be novel/priority based. Reviewers and editors are public domain. So apart from fees, what is wrong with these open-access, no-priority journals?
I can appreciate the work that Frontiers has done from helping introduce the concept of gold open access for many researchers but the wheels seem to have fallen off for many of the sub-journalshttps://forbetterscience.com/2018/03/06/editor-sacked-over-rejection-rate-not-inline-with-frontiers-core-principles/ …
.@dsquintana @prof_brunt I’m not a huge fan of Frontiers journals but the idea that such journals are a free-for-all/pay-to-publish isn’t very fair or accurate. My reject rate as Plos One editor is about 70%. Acceptance criteria are quite specific but some authors submit anyway.
I agree, there are plenty of great gold open access options out there with reasonable rejection rates and good practices
At least the reviewer responses don't take 6 months, lucky kid
I was once desk rejected within a few hours of submission. At first I was annoyed but in the end I was appreciative for the rapid kick in the arse
13 minutes is my record. Seriously.
Wow, you can’t even have pretended to have read the manuscript with that kind of turnaround time
Reminds me of a HackerNews commenter who said "Skimmed it and didn't see many equations, so this isn't worthwhile". I responded by linking our 90 page supplement that has more math than English 
Is it still schadenfreude if I find it funny because I see myself in him?
We all do. And we need a new word for this. :)
Let’s ask some Germans, can you help us come up with a new word @koeniglab or @TobKaufmann? 
@PopEcology has suggested eigenschadenfreude.
Sounds pretty good to me
The movie is funny at first place. But it does not acknowledge the progress journals like Frontiers an PLOS one brought to the community, like post-publication evaluation. And was it not them that forced Science and Nature to come out with their “cheap branches”?
I agree that both journals have done a lot of good things for open science. I was more addressing at the “prestige shuffle” that researchers go through when submitting manuscripts + recent concerns with low rejection thresholds at frontiers
Would you put PLOS below Frontiers?
I thought PLOS has been doing ok recently (other than long decision times) unless I’ve missed something?
I'm not sure if they've had any scandals lately, but they've published some truly terrible work. Someone renamed heat maps "quilt plots" and got a paper out of it.https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0085047 …
It has been corrected though.
Do you think the corrections go far enough? This function is literally built into Excel since at least Excel 2007... https://www.techonthenet.com/excel/questions/cond_format1_2007.php …
Even if the original paper were honest, I think the question is should this be published. Personally, I don't think so, and I would be embarrassed if my paper was in the same journal as this one. Code like this should just go on GitHub.
Or FigShare! I’ve published some excel tricks and MATLAB functions to FigShare. They get DOIs and can be easily cited in manuscripts and/or listed in CV (depending on type).
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
