Q about open/closed reviewing: article was uploaded as preprint, submitted to journal with closed review, then rejected based on 1st round reviews. Do you think it's acceptible to paraphrase reviewer feedback and upload it with preprint v2 as context for changes? #openscience
-
-
I don't know who they are, so I would have to go through the journal editors as proxy. My guess is it will take a long time to get consent, if it happens at all. Cost benefit tradeoff here suggests i just upload preprint v2 without (paraphrased) reviews for context, i think...
-
I tend to agree.
-
Semi-related Q: by the same logic, tweeting something like "Reviewer 2 asked us to do [insert new analysis method here] while we already accounted for blabla etc etc [insert frustrated emojis here]" is then violating the reviewer's right to keep personal data private?
-
I think saying something like "we did this after reviewer request without the number it should be fine" That is part of the implicit contract, I'd say. And it doesn't contain their words or phrasing, right?
-
Let's say it contains 1 similar word. Or 8. Seems like fertile ground for lots of hair splitting :) i think the bigger issue is consent. By removing similar words or number, we make it harder to identify the reviewer, but doesn’t fix absence of consent. Or am i missing sth?
-
That's really difficult, and I'd really ask an expert, if you have someone around...
-
We have some GDPR experts at the uni, will ask them at some point. Do you have something to link to wrt reviews being seen as personal data?
-
That was during a talk, so no
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.