Is open review damaging and unfair? Does it enforce rather than reduce power structures? Is the primary purpose self-serving rather than advance? Strong opinion from @ProfData
Would be interesting to hear views from, e.g., @talyarkoni @ChrisFiloG @BrianNosek @opensciencehttps://twitter.com/ProfData/status/1083004240711307265 …
-
-
Yes, it's selectively open in which the reviewer chooses what to share at a time that suits them. This is open to abuse. This is not publishing reviews after publication, as in the eLife model.
-
Would it help for preprints to optionally have an unlisted/embargoed phase? So one can post to preprint server to preserve open access before journal submission & have an unlisted shareable link, but prevent others from publicly discussing it for a certain period.
-
Not sure it would have helped here... The person who blogged about it only knew about it/did so because it got sent to him for traditional review.
-
Ah ok, I wasn't sure if that was what was going on i.e. a reviewer for the paper decided to make the review public after the journal decision.
-
Yeah, that's it.
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.