mayb being naive but is preprint + journal/ribbon more work for readers who want only peer-rev'ed stuff? 1/2
-
-
doesn't mean I'm against it all - just wondering about quality control 2/2
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @Villavelius
The role of peer-review in quality control is GREATLY overrated. https://svpow.com/2012/11/26/well-that-about-wraps-it-up-for-peer-review/ … …http://breast-cancer-research.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/bcr2742 …
1 reply 3 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @MikeTaylor @Villavelius
@wordpressdotcom oh, I know... Last week we got non peers reviewing us at a really top journal. Thanks for links!1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @MikeTaylor and
I don't know what to replace it with though sadly...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
One option: nothing. We no longer need it to optimise use of scarce space.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
won't social media/Google rankings in a way just take its place? That worries me a little.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I hope we can do better; but I think that would be a big improvement on what we have now.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Worries me that pubs with high altmetrics = often crappy. Obv doesn't mean peer rev = not broken.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I bet they correlate better with actual quality (whatever that is) than IF does.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
can't disagree there
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.