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?
-
-
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 -
Replying to @o_guest @esdalmaijer and
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @talyarkoni @esdalmaijer and
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.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @esdalmaijer and
what's the relevant context? he linked to the paper. if I were to publish a critique in a different "real" journal, would you also complain that that's self-serving, and I should have done it as a comment on the preprint?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I'm not sure how the question you posed is relevant? How can you publish your review? Are you one of the reviewers?
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.