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.
If there is are preprint I try to find a way to link my review to it (especially if rejected)
Yes, as long as preprints exist, you can link to them. The nice thing about @Meta_Psy is that the preprint is the submission.
I totally agree, and have been fuming about this for years (but rarely hear it voiced by others). Publishing reports leading to rejections or calls for serious revision is a great idea. Not only would papers be improved, we're bound to see less biased referee reports.
PubPeer/Peeriodicals would be another option, either for the review itself or for a link to the blog.
Totally agree that keeping rejection reviews secret is a horrible waste.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
