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.
-
-
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 -
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.