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 …
-
-
Replying to @ProfData @KriegeskorteLab
Interesting case! Paper was posted on bioArxiv, which invites open peer review. Your primary concerns are with Kriegeskorte’s lack of tact, and with content of his review. Hence you leave an open rebuttal. Correct? Is it better in the open? What should not have been open?
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @esdalmaijer @KriegeskorteLab
It would be great if people provided comments on preprints, especially if we had a chance to digest and reply. Instead, the preprint system is being weaponised by
@KriegeskorteLab as a way to post dismissive journal reviews that are really cheap self-aggrandizing blog posts.2 replies 2 retweets 4 likes -
so, who is it serving? we already got the comments from the editor so not the author. Is it serving the community? then why wait for the editor...
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
and of course it is very strategic what is reviewed, promoted, etc. I wonder whether it is convenient to miss the point of a paper so one can in effect write a blog post about their work.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @ProfData @KriegeskorteLab
Interesting points! I share some concerns, but also think bioArxiv/F1000/etc are designed for direct discourse. Arguably not via blog posts, but via comments embedded within manuscripts' pages. Is it better to release reviews either directly, or only when a rebuttal is available?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
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.1 reply 2 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @esdalmaijer and
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.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
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.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @esdalmaijer @ProfData and
But it wasn't once he'd done them. It was right after rejection email received.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
To make it clear: if the reviews are sent right after they were done, the authors get a chance to engage in dialogue before rejection from journal...
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.