Low hanging fruit #1 : Many of these preprints may already have reviews posted elsewhere, such as @PubPeer. Find them and post a comment with the link to the review.
-
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
Low hanging fruit #2 : Do you know someone who uses the methods described in the preprint? Congratulations, you are now an academic editor! Send them a link to the preprint and ask them to post a review in the comments.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Let's talk ground rules. This is a serious situation. People are sick. Public officials around the world are making decisions that will impact millions of lives. We need to bring our A-game. This is not the time for sarcasm, personal attacks, or any of that nonsense.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Be professional. Be clear. Be polite. Be thorough. We are not just talking to our colleagues, mentors, students and competitors right now. We are not just talking to our fellow citizens. We are talking to the human race, on behalf of the human race.
Prikaži ovu nit -
If you are professionally fluent in languages other than English, particularly Chinese, you have something unique to offer. If you have the language AND scientific skills, consider posting your review in all languages at your command.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Low hanging fruit #3 : Are you an author of a recent preprint or article about coronavirus? Make absolutely sure that your code, data and analysis is easy to discover. Engage constructively, respectfully and publicly with reviewers. Be available, even for criticism.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Low hanging fruit #4 : Are you the author of an article CITED by a recent preprint about coronavirus? Check your article altmetrics if you aren't sure. You can at least comment on whether your work was used and interpreted appropriately.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Low hanging fruit #5 : Are you the author of a software tool used in a recent preprint about coronavirus? You can comment on whether your tool was used correctly, whether it is the right tool for the analysis, and whether the results are interpreted correctly.
Prikaži ovu nit -
In particular, I'm calling on the authors of MEGA -- Masatoshi Nei, Sudhir Kumar, Koichiro Tamura, Glen Stecher, Daniel Peterson, Nicholas Peterson -- to make sure their tool is being used appropriately.
Prikaži ovu nit -
I am calling on the authors of MAFT -- John Rozewicki, Songling Li, Karlou Mar Amada, Daron M Standley and Kazutaka Katoh (from their latest publication) -- to make sure their tool is being used appropriately.
Prikaži ovu nit -
I am calling on the authors of jModelTest -- Diego Darriba (
@_ddarriba), Guillermo L Taboada, Ramón Doallo and David Posada -- to make sure their tools is being used appropriately.Prikaži ovu nit -
I am calling on our partners in industry --
@illumina,@BioRad,@nanopore,@pacbio,@RocheSequencing,@NEBiolabs,@genetec -- to review these preprints and make sure your products are being used appropriately. You employ some of the best minds in our world!Prikaži ovu nit -
There is more than one way to do this. You can post your reviews directly to as
@biorxivpreprint comments, or you can use@PREreview_. Look at all these preprints with ZERO reviews! Those zeros should guilt you EVERY BIT as much as a review request from your favourite editor.pic.twitter.com/d0t0SxWVMr
Prikaži ovu nit -
After some reflection on the on Pradhan et al. (the infamous "Uncanny similarity" preprint), I have some thoughts. The analysis and interpretation is certainly flawed, but that is not a reason to pillory its AUTHORS. We expect preprints to have flaws. That is what they are for.
Prikaži ovu nit -
We could have, and we should have, spent those critical first few hours engaging with the authors to help them get a corrected draft up. We could have, and we should have, cared about them as colleagues. We could have, and we should have, acted like a community.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Just like regular journal articles don't work without editors and reviewers acting with personal integrity, preprints don't work without the community acting with integrity. Whatever you believe about preprints, you know that we all need our work checked.
Prikaži ovu nit -
If we aren't participating in that process, we aren't living up to our responsibilities to our colleagues. It should not matter what the platform is. It could be a journal, or a preprint, or a blog post, or a tweet. The PRINCIPLES of peer review are the same.
Prikaži ovu nit -
We don't need to be outraged when we see something wrong with a preprint. We DO need to fix it. The preprint system calls for a higher degree of skepticism of the science, but ALSO a higher degree of compassion for the authors.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Imagine how much more creative and productive you could be if you could get feedback from your whole community while you were still developing your ideas. Imagine if that feedback was constructive and kindly meant. I want us to be THAT community.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Imagine a community where you can be wrong, in public, in writing, and instead of being shot down and humiliated, your colleagues rushed to your aid and helped you fix the errors in your science. Let's be THAT community.
Prikaži ovu nit -
We have enormous power to decide among ourselves what the labor conditions of science are like. Right now, they are not so great for most of us. How we treat preprints is very much connected to how we treat junior scientists, which is a CRITICAL PROBLEM facing our community.
Prikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.