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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NeuroStats @o_guest and
Just to clarify (because the above can be understood two ways): Niko always reviews publicly, so the decision to write a blog post was made upon acceptance to review (and not after the decision by the journal).
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @TimKietzmann @o_guest and
Is every single review regardless of journal always publicly posted?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NeuroStats @TimKietzmann and
It's not the norm and not done at the journal we submitted. Some journals publish reviews for papers that ACCEPTED, but both authors and reviewers know this going in. In general, people give consent and know what they are getting into. Not the case here.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ProfData @NeuroStats and
you gave consent and knew what you were getting into (or should have) when you posted a public preprint and encouraged people to read it and comment on it. what more is there to it than that? why should it matter that what prompted the commentary was the review invitation?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @talyarkoni @NeuroStats and
Niko had additional non-public info from journal review as well and his "review" process was driven by the journal process. His "review" process itself for the journal is tainted by the fact that he is primarily blogging not reviewing. It's fairly simple.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ProfData @NeuroStats and
if he'd thought, "I'm going to do a quick sloppy job on this review, so that I can write a long thorough blog post about the preprint immediately after," would that have been okay? or does merely having the intention to write a blog post preclude one from reviewing?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @talyarkoni @ProfData and
The review he sent to the journal is different (I do not know how and in what ways, but I know it is) than the one posted on his blog. So technically it's a very weird situation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
uh, isn't this exactly what you claim to want? so if it's the same review that's a problem, and if it's not the same review, that's also a problem?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I feel like we exist in two parallel universes where meaningful information exchange has ceased and instead you think you understand what I "claim to want" when actually I have no idea what you are on about.
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.