Many problems. Maybe a start would be for journal reviewers to not use their reviewing as an opportunity to blog the work.
-
-
so IF they are reviewing you do not think they should comment on the preprint on their blog or post comments on the preprint? Even if it was after the review process had completed? (But IF they were not reviewing, it would be okay?)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @neuroecology @ProfData and
I can't really see why posting a critical, yet professionally written review as a comment on a fully public preprint is any different from posting it as a blog. I don't see how being a blogger is a COI for being a reviewer, an editor, or anything else.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @micahgallen @neuroecology and
If you didn't want open comments on the manuscript, don't preprint it. Regardless of whether Niko's criticism is fair, you seem to be reporting to ad hominim in a state of despair. Rejection - unfair, public, or otherwise sucks. But this doesn't seem constructive to your cause.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @micahgallen @neuroecology and
And it definitely isn't constructive to open science. I don't think anyone would disagree that fully open science has plenty of potential for misuse and abuse. But is posting a professional disagreement about a publicly available document abuse? I don't see it.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @micahgallen @neuroecology and
Are you sure that your not just enraged and embarrassed to have this debate about the merits of your science in public? Do you have any evidence Niko is doing this specifically to shame you and your trainees? Has he treated your paper any differently from the others he reviews?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @micahgallen @neuroecology and
I think it's a good time for all parties to take some time away from the net and reconsider how they want this drama to take place. Let the science stand on its own merits, but it's hard to see the current discussion as productive Brad. And I say that as a big fan of your work.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @micahgallen @neuroecology and
People can comment/blog on the preprint, that's fine. What is not fine is a journal reviewer using the occasion to write a blog post under the guise of a review. It's a COI and the blogger has access to other reviews. Why would one behave this way?
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @ProfData @micahgallen and
And let's not pretend this is open science. This is someone wanting to wear the open science cape while publishing in closed glamour journals and writing self-serving blog posts based on articles they cherry pick to "review".
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Possibly useful to consider the perspective (experiences, questions, etc.) of the first author too here. It's all well for people who have "made it" in the field and/or hold positions of relative power to say "take a deep breath" or "you're not as open science as me" or wtv...
-
-
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ Retweeted Sebastian Bobadilla Suarez
...but maybe take a moment to think that there are more voices here than just yours? And that there is inherent value in listening to the affected parties?https://twitter.com/seb_bobadilla/status/1083386389973123073 …
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ added,
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
[Also no offence, Micah, but if you told me to take a deep breath online after I expressed my anger at something I considered unjust I'd tell you to go fuck yourself.]
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.