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?
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes, indeed! Ethical standards are needed to protect us from oligarchy and chaos.
-
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. -
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.
-
That's how they do it at compsci conferences. People's complaints aren't irrelevant.
-
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;
-
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.
-
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.
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.