Rezultati pretraživanja
  1. 1. velj

    Reviewing cannot be easier. In seconds you can install in your browser or work directly on the platform. It's open and it's free.

  2. prije 6 sati

    I agree with the piece. The quick retraction of the "uncanny" paper shows that peer review on works, in fact in my view much better than the current system based on 2-3 anonymous peer-reviewers prior to publication

    Prikaži ovu nit
  3. prije 8 sati

    Disseminating this type of analysis broadly as spreads represents a huge benefit of ! Even if it isn't peer-reviewed, it is better to be able to critically evaluate this information moving forward than not to have it.

    Prikaži ovu nit
  4. 2. velj

    This! Read it! Amazing how can make a difference !

  5. More comments/commenters on , please. Would very much help reporters trying to cover one (or, equally important, explaining to editors why we don't think that's a good idea).

  6. 1. velj

    seems like some scientists are taking advantage of nCov2019 outbreak and flooding with . has to display a notification on their website.

  7. 1. velj

    Yes, they have not yet been peer reviewed, but you all researchers in the field can these both rapidly on or more extensively on .

  8. prije 2 sata
  9. 27. sij

    Time to publication for shown to be 19 days faster than non-preprinted research:

  10. 1. velj

    Don't forget before further proceedings with that they are not peer reviewed, though the community deserves huge respect for putting their immediate contributions in public health concern.

  11. prije 13 sati

    Based on the scientific community's collective response to a recent preprint on , we now see the true value of - "fostering scientific communication and rapid awareness of others’ work"

  12. Oops: Study claiming can be transmitted by people without symptoms was flawed, tells us: It's not just ; research is moving almost as fast as the

  13. prije 14 sati

    5 Scholarly Publishing Trends to Watch in 2020:

  14. 3. velj

    Welp, someone certainly has a problem with folx who support & during the current epi/pandemic:

    [Text of quote, CW for language] Yeah, you can fuck off with those assumptions. I’ve been an editor for over a decade, and I’ve spent most of that as an academic editor. I’m pretty sure I know a whole fucking lot more about publishing than you.
    [Text of quote, CW for language] Now go away. You’re annoying, and I really don’t have the time or inclination to deal with BUT MAH FREEDOM and PREPRINTS ARE THE BEST when we have pretty fucking clear proof they’ve caused chaos and harm.
  15. 2. velj
    Odgovor korisnicima

    And welcome to ! ✨

  16. 2. velj
  17. 1. velj
    Odgovor korisniku/ci

    The preprint on shows the value of not the weakness. There was rapid dialogue, feedback and authors listened. It was open and transparent exchange. Not all Pre prints (or eve peer reviewed articles) are strong. They should spark discussion.

  18. 1. velj

    Coming late onto Twitter: For i in x: { bad coz spread misinformation -> Twitter bad because spreads bad info -> Preprints good coz immediate and extensive review -> Twitter good coz bad info heavily criticized } Print x I'm still digesting the point of preprints.

    Prikaži ovu nit
  19. 1. velj

    One good thing about is that they are lower stakes, so it's easier for authors to take criticism & withdraw if necessary.

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.