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 …
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
Exactly! Most pubs you have to trust 2-4 anon people who prob never saw the data. If
#preprints (w/ data) have errors, you'll def find out.1 reply 2 retweets 9 likes -
So you're only against anonymous and closed peer review. I see.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'm mixed on peer review (& am having a hard think about my role in the pub process) I think anon peer review is necessary in some contexts.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Me too.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @LisaDeBruine and
I'm still not entirely sure why people think preprints are a replacement for peer review? Peer review imho is required.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
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
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Have you seen what we do at
@ReScienceEds? What do you think of that?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
I respect that and I hope we can make it more accessible!
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.