I am an editor; there is much evidence of biases in the review process which are alleviated by blind review. also aware of my own biases.
-
-
It means there's a meritocratic system that harms the many and benefits the few regardless of ERC status.
-
I can't tell if you are replying in bad faith or not though, it's genuinely confusing to me.
-
But anyway, a meritocratic system will also harm ERCs more than senior people because by definition it's shaped like a pyramid so if you're
-
senior you can significantly more likely to be near the top (otherwise you'd have left/been kicked out probably). I'm sure you're aware of
-
this, which is why I am so confused as to if you are replying in bad faith or not in this thread.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm not sure why or when preprints became something elite profits from, so I suggest one simple solution: everyone founds their own journal
-
OK, what metric would you like? E.g., I can see a trend in my field between preprints from "good" labs and the comments they get on biorXiv.
-
The "better" the lab the more feedback and comments. Not looking like meritocracy?
-
Also altmetrics, I can bet you the "better" the lab the higher the altmetrics. I have noticed this trend too.
-
OMG please stop adding Oliver back in — already asked to be removed.
-
I think your facetious replies "everyone founds their own journal" and "research about research about research" aren't going down well with
-
ppl & definitely not with me, so I'll leave you be for a bit because I still think you might be doing this all in bad faith for some reason.
-
thank you for patronising, I'm happy to leave this bizarre, well, debate it hardly is.
- 4 more replies
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.