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 -
Replying to @LisaDeBruine @o_guest and
My point was that you can't necessarily trust that peer review is even done by "experts", much less that they had sufficient data to review.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @LisaDeBruine @o_guest and
We don't even train graduate students on how to properly conduct peer reviews, but after a few pubs, they start getting invited to do them.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ianagutierrez @o_guest and
Training is important, but often I can't get any of the small number of experts to review so I have to ask someone only partially qualified.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @LisaDeBruine @o_guest and
Of course, all editors struggle there. I was just emphasizing your point that our peer review "experts" are often anything but.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ianagutierrez @LisaDeBruine and
But how would preprints help? The experts might not have time then too?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
In the case mentioned above the experts claim not to have the time right?
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.