Open is good right? In response to @KriegeskorteLab's open review of our work on neural similarity, I offer you "An open review of Niko Kriegeskorte", which is a less tedious read that touches on how difficult it is do something novel in this field.http://bradlove.org/blog/open-review …
-
-
As opposed to now where it's basically just created a heuristic for other to also reject this paper without reading it, which has genuinely happened already.
-
That's unfortunate but wouldn't you place the blame on reviewers who are not doing their job in this case?
-
Ascribing blame to individuals is a pointless exercise really and not what I was intending on emphasising. The real blame is systemic. The field, as any human grouping, can turn against somebody for reasons outside "how good is the science".
-
Basically, at the end of the day, there is a system for leaving comments on preprint servers, it should be used. Because it is truly open: preserves context; allows authors to reply/engage in dialogue with criticism; and improve their manuscript.
-
the irony of this position is it sounds a lot like the one people use to argue against preprints and PPPR: "there is a system for peer review, and it works. people shouldn't be able to unilaterally circumvent that with open reviews."
-
I don't think the system works. I think it's biased.
-
In fact my opinion is that this blog post highlights exactly how all these systems don't work and that the only way to be constructive is to be actually open. Context is easily lost online (context collapse) and this was a good example to show that.
-
Certain media and timings promote more or less context information. A model like eLife's is pretty good. Ultimately, the point is that people will game the system no matter what, but a better system is possible, e.g., eLife.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.