What a strange perspective. Citing a bad false paper in Cell is okay but citing a solid true preprint is not?https://twitter.com/mdshawkey/status/863348386879164416 …
I'm still not entirely sure why people think preprints are a replacement for peer review? Peer review imho is required.
-
-
I think most preprint advocates just want preprints first, followed by peer review.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I agree, but many only think about anon, closed, pre-pub PR when you say PR. As a journal editor, I'd love to figure out a way to broaden it
-
Have you seen what we do at
@ReScienceEds? What do you think of that? -
I hadn't. That's fab! It's ideal for researchers familiar w/ git, etc., but not a model I could sell to the current generation in my field.
-
I respect that and I hope we can make it more accessible!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
i think particularly for senior researchers it's not a bad idea to sign peer reviews p
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.