Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
o_guest's profile
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ
@o_guest

Tweets

Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ

@o_guest

• goth gremlin • computational cognitive/neuroscience modeling • geek & techish Cypriot • plant aficionada • came up with #bropenscience • http://neuroplausible.com  •

Τότεναμ, Λονδίνο & Cyprus
olivia.science
Joined October 2015

Tweets

  • © 2019 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Imprint
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Kriegeskorte Lab‏ @KriegeskorteLab Jan 12
      • Report Tweet

      Open review has clear advantages, but also comes with new challenges and discomforts. I’d like to get a better feel for these. When is it acceptable to publish a critical open review?

      20 replies 14 retweets 14 likes
    2. Blake Richards‏ @tyrell_turing Jan 13
      • Report Tweet
      Replying to @KriegeskorteLab

      I would actually vote a different option: when it’s published in a journal. It’s clear to me that an open review signed by a well-known scientist could impact new reviewers in a manner that is not necessarily fair. But, once published, all criticisms should be aired openly.

      2 replies 1 retweet 36 likes
    3. Tal Linzen‏ @tallinzen Jan 13
      • Report Tweet
      Replying to @tyrell_turing @KriegeskorteLab

      That's the only good argument I've seen against open peer review! Do you think that anonymous open reviews à la ICLR address this concern? I.e. how much of it is about the fact that the review is signed by a prominent scientist?

      1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
    4. Blake Richards‏ @tyrell_turing Jan 13
      • Report Tweet
      Replying to @tallinzen @KriegeskorteLab

      Yes, totally, the ICLR model addresses my concerns here. If the open review is anonymous, then the criticisms can stand on their own merit.

      2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
    5. Brad Wyble‏ @bradpwyble Jan 13
      • Report Tweet
      Replying to @tyrell_turing @tallinzen @KriegeskorteLab

      Sure but let's not imagine that it is always easy to hide one's identity, particularly for a highly prominent person, a lengthy review and a very contentious issue.

      2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
    6. Kriegeskorte Lab‏ @KriegeskorteLab Jan 13
      • Report Tweet
      Replying to @bradpwyble @tyrell_turing @tallinzen

      anonymous comments should always be possible (e.g. in a preprint server's commenting system). but people, of course, also need to be free to blog and write papers, where they sign as the author. i hope we can just learn to be civil and stand by our scientific judgments.

      1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
    7. Blake Richards‏ @tyrell_turing Jan 13
      • Report Tweet
      Replying to @KriegeskorteLab @bradpwyble @tallinzen

      I agree, Niko, but you can abide by the principle of ppl being free to openly publish their criticisms in their name (on a blog, say) once an art. is published. I would argue that first reviewers have a duty not to influence new reviewers except via ideas (e.g. not credentials).

      2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes
    8. Blake Richards‏ @tyrell_turing Jan 13
      • Report Tweet
      Replying to @andpru @KriegeskorteLab and

      I don’t know, good Q!

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ‏ @o_guest Jan 13
      • Report Tweet
      Replying to @tyrell_turing @andpru and

      Poisoning the well as @nathanieldaw mentioned is a real issue. That's why AFAIC NeurIPS and other conferences have a specific standard with blinding, replies from authors, and then de-anonymising when a paper is accepted.

      3:33 PM - 13 Jan 2019
      • 1 Retweet
      • 4 Likes
      • Nathaniel Daw Esther Mondragón Andrew Pruszynski Blake Richards Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ
      2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ‏ @o_guest Jan 13
          • Report Tweet
          Replying to @o_guest @tyrell_turing and

          Standards and explicit expectations are needed for open review just like we have standards for open data, open access, open source, etc. Otherwise it's chaos.

          1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes
        3. Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ‏ @o_guest Jan 13
          • Report Tweet
          Replying to @o_guest @tyrell_turing and

          During a compsci conference submission for example, their system deems the existence of a preprint irrelevant. The article is still blinded and sent through the standardised system for review.

          1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes
        4. Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ‏ @o_guest Jan 13
          • Report Tweet
          Replying to @o_guest @tyrell_turing and

          In neuro it's journals not conferences, and in this case a closed journal, which doesn't have an explicit procedure like this to tell one what to do if there is a preprint, I guess... For sure, it wasn't designed to deal with what Niko did at all.

          1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes
        5. Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ‏ @o_guest Jan 13
          • Report Tweet
          Replying to @o_guest @tyrell_turing and

          So it stands to reason more consent (and community-wide dialogue) should have been sought before, as others have said, the well became poisoned. I wonder what others who Niko blogged about feel...

          1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes
        6. Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ‏ @o_guest Jan 13
          • Report Tweet
          Replying to @o_guest @tyrell_turing and

          Another question that springs to mind is if one is radically opposed to closed journals what should they do? Accepting to review for closed journals is a complex issue if you disagree with their system. And, as seen here, mixing and matching causes harm to ECRs and generally.

          0 replies 1 retweet 5 likes
        7. End of conversation
        1. New conversation
        2. Esther Mondragón‏ @twitemp1 Jan 13
          • Report Tweet
          Replying to @o_guest @tyrell_turing and

          Yes, indeed! Ethical standards are needed to protect us from oligarchy and chaos.

          1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes
        3. deen-chan‏ @sir_deenicus Jan 13
          • Report Tweet
          Replying to @twitemp1 @o_guest and

          I think in addition to these, it's also worth considering why the well is poisonable in the first place. I don't agree with @KriegeskorteLab but I don't think they are wrong here. Who am I and why does what I think matter? This game is scale free, possessing self-similarity.

          2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes
        4. Nathaniel Daw‏ @nathanieldaw Jan 14
          • Report Tweet
          Replying to @sir_deenicus @twitemp1 and

          Can I amend the term "well poisoning"? I think the general issue is that sparse public reviews can have outsize influence on concurrent private review. Ppl won't complain if it promotes the paper but the arguable unfairness is the same.

          1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
        5. Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ‏ @o_guest Jan 14
          • Report Tweet
          Replying to @nathanieldaw @sir_deenicus and

          That's how they do it at compsci conferences. People's complaints aren't irrelevant.

          1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
        6. Esther Mondragón‏ @twitemp1 Jan 14
          • Report Tweet
          Replying to @o_guest @nathanieldaw and

          Re-examining the purpose of the peer review system and the role that a reviewer plays in it may help. Call me naïve, but it’d say that the practice aims at guaranteeing that a paper meets some given scientific standards;

          1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes
        7. Esther Mondragón‏ @twitemp1 Jan 14
          • Report Tweet
          Replying to @twitemp1 @o_guest and

          the reviewers’ task that of assessing whether the work conforms or can meet these standards and helping the authors to achieve them. Any reviewers' action that deviates from that function could/should perhaps be considered unethical.

          1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
        8. Esther Mondragón‏ @twitemp1 Jan 14
          • Report Tweet
          Replying to @twitemp1 @o_guest and

          Public comments from peers not involved or confabulated with reviewers is a different matter, yet one would expect colleagues to abide by civilised manners and professional courtesy.

          0 replies 1 retweet 3 likes
        9. End of 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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2019 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Imprint
        • Cookies
        • Ads info