In an open system, it is easier to expose appeals to authority and argue based on quality of evidence. With closed, the "bad stuff" still happens, we just don't see it. The big challenge of open, is that all of it plays out in public. So, the misbehavior is detectable, but...
-
-
Replying to @BrianNosek @INM7_ISN and
how we manage the interpersonal conflict is public too. That puts much higher demand on our patience, anxiety of how others will interpret our responses, and feeling of pressure to get it right. However, NOT feeling those things in private is what helps produce bad behavior.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @BrianNosek @INM7_ISN and
Upshot * We need a system that is as critical of evidence as possible. Many minds, many debates openly help achieve that. * Productive debate includes respect for persons. * That's hard bc we take critique of our evidence as critique of ourselves & some people are pricks.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @BrianNosek @INM7_ISN and
In this case, the preprint system was weaponised. We were used as fodder for a blog post, which was posted only after the editor sent reviewer comments. So, this was not for the authors. If it was for the community, why wait until the decision letter? Is this open?
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Not sure I understand relevance of the journal submission part. If a paper is publicly posted (preprint or published), then it's open to critique. The critique might be incompetent or inappropriately hostile (I haven't read), but that's an issue of the message not process, no?
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @BrianNosek @ProfData and
This preprint was only reviewed as part of a traditional journal submission though. Had
@biorxivpreprint's system been used to leave the feedback it would/could have been incorporated into the article before journal submission. It's (ab)use of a semi-"open" system.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @BrianNosek and
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.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NeuroStats @ProfData and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Yeah, that's it.
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.