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 …
-
-
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.
-
It's ironic you think that I and
@ProfData who publish preprints are/can be against preprints because we pointed out how systems which contain them can be biased. Such criticism is exactly what is useful for progress. - 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It seems more in the spirit of open science to share reviews once you’ve done them, regardless of what prompted them, no? (Although here there’s a tricky issue with exact timing, if I understand
@ProfData correctly.) Kriegeskorte isn’t responsible for other reviewers using his. -
But it wasn't once he'd done them. It was right after rejection email received.
-
Yes, that’s the tricky timing issue I referred to.
-
Also I think you are responsible for how your words are used by others (to an extent), but I don't think that's a point worth debating on Twitter.

-
Yeah, that sounds like an interesting philosophical tangent :)
-
I think it's' central to
@ProfData's blog post though. How well do you know your English history?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F … -
In my opinion, you are now comparing a call for (violent) action in an explicit or thinly veiled way to a reviewer sourcing views from other scientists after critical scrutiny. The latter is not invited by the source, whereas the former is.
-
So now you have read into my words (a metaphor) something other than the point I was making. Am I responsible for how you just read my words?
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
would the commentary not be just as available to reviewers as a heuristics had it been left underneath the preprint as a comment? is the objection to the fact that people are likely to actually read Niko's blog, and not comments?
-
I think that, as
@ProfData and I have already said in this thread just above, would be ideal because it allows for a dialogue and would have been in time to allow for arguing against rejection. It's also more open as it allows for the full context to be readily available. -
Yep, plus hard to pretend these are honest reviews when they are ultimately intended as blog posts to promote a certain brand of research. That is an inherent conflict of interest. One can't wear all these hats at once, especially when wielding power.
-
I don't get this. pretty much everything we do is self-serving. did you post a preprint out of the goodness of your heart, even though it hurts you? aren't you just contributing to the demise of traditional prepub review? who gave to the right to attempt to evade gatekeepers?
-
There are different functions to optimize. When one is optimizing the wrong one, you might call it a conflict of interest.
End of conversation
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.