U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
New blog post, consisting of the review I submitted for this article a bit more than a month ago: https://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2020/02/review-of-do-effect-sizes-in-psychology.html … Article was rejected, but is now accepted elsewhere without substantial changes. I thought the article was relatively weak.https://twitter.com/PsyArXivBot/status/1223714434369118212 …
Perhaps my comments are interesting, perhaps not. Regardless, it would be nice if all the time researchers put into reviews is not wasted, and their thoughts can be made known. So far, @Meta_Psy is the only journal I know that publishes reviews of rejected manuscripts.
But but but you are breaking the sacred secrets of the holy confessional booth of peer review!pic.twitter.com/lHzvqhxGCf
You are setting a nice example. Many other people than the author and editor can learn from such thoughtful reviews. It's a pity that so much work remains in inaccessible vaults.
I just skimmed the article and your review very quickly and my view is that it would have been much better if the article had been revised based on your feedback than rejected. Reject and submit elsewhere is such a waste of resources. (Not authors fault)
But the author can choose to revise before resubmitting (regardless of where), and if they decide not to, is on them #OverlyDisgruntledEditor
Typo: "Standardized effect sizes are useful of measurement tools differ" of/if
It’s interesting to publish one’s own review. The standard objection, which is real, is that the document pre-revision-from-peer-review is based on privileged communications. But once the paper is published unrevised, objection dissolves.
Great subject
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
