Search results

  1. People View all

  2. 5 hours ago
    Replying to and

    Got your point & I agree. However, the quality of the scientific production may be threatened. I see the problematic system as an adverse event that we need to bear with, while we find a better treatment. OA+ improving non-financial incentives may be the alternatives

    2 likes
  3. Dec 22

    "What does do? Refereeing undoubtedly delays the publication of research, but it is widely believed to add significant value as a means of accrediting ‘proper’ research and researchers"

    1 reply
  4. 17 hours ago

    Out of curiosity Twitterati do you know anyone who ISN'T really fond of for the reasons suggested in this article (and from a general health and wellbeing angle)? If not get in touch...

    “....rads who received a discrepant report had a ... higher rate of submitting one of their own.” As the past chair of a QA/QI committee, I totally believe this.
    1 reply 1 like
  5. Dec 26

    process from 2012, but it is still same 😂 Any experience with this 'reviewer's gradient'? Rev1 The flow of the manuscript is all-over the place, difficult to follow. Rev2 Despite the review is easy to read, some issues need attention. Rev3 The paper is well written.

    3 likes
  6. 3 hours ago

    👇 This. Scored is divisive & spurs retaliation. Also important to note that if the non-judgemental spirit of isn’t actively cultivated & reinforced by leadership, you can end up w the same behavior. Just removing the score doesn’t guarantee success.

    “....rads who received a discrepant report had a ... higher rate of submitting one of their own.” As the past chair of a QA/QI committee, I totally believe this.
    1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes
  7. Dec 22
    Replying to

    … points / credits system for and editing / authoring for journals

    1 like
  8. 5 hours ago

    Tales from the Trenches brings together case studies, journal management strategies, and new developments in from editors across , the , and .

  9. 9 hours ago

    How well do you know ? Put your knowledge to the test in our quiz.

    2 retweets
  10. 16 hours ago
    Replying to

    Agree! It doesnt improve quality and I think it’ll, eventually, ⬇️quality, ⬆️corruption & will boost fake reviews I see as a service;we need to encourage this idea and as you said, to improve incentives: is on the right track on this task!

    1 reply 6 likes
  11. Dec 18

    Can journal editors *please* stop allowing reviewers to ask that their papers be cited in every submission they review? This is coercive and bordering on research misconduct in some cases.

    1 reply
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
  12. Dec 26

    Interesting: Journal to experiment with opt-in/opt-out transparent .

    1 retweet
  13. Dec 20

    Good and timely is absolutely essential for the success of . We are therefore extremely grateful for the support of so many colleagues who have dedicated their time this year.

    3 likes
  14. Dec 24

    Listening to excellent production of MR James' Casting the Runes' with . What terrors (rightfully) befall reviewers who reject papers!!! 🤣

    1 like
  15. Dec 21

    Uh-oh...taking on the dreaded role of "Reviewer 3" for the first time.

    5 likes
  16. Dec 21
    Replying to

    Or as I always say, 'show me your models'!

    1 like
  17. Dec 20

    I always appreciate reading how works from the AE or journal's side. And here explains nicely the black-box of how reviewers are invited. How (as an editor) I choose lists of reviewers

    2 retweets 5 likes
  18. Dec 20

    What a great list on choosing reviewers. I'd add 1) calling on related experts who've recently published with the journal since they tend to respond positively and 2) PhD students who are often on top of the latest literature.

    How (as an editor) I choose lists of reviewers
    1 reply
  19. Dec 22
    Replying to

    The gap between the potential and actuality of is unfortunate. This is another symptom of asking faculty to do more, despite limited time and little recognition. Sometimes, it's a struggle just to find two reviewers!

    1 reply 4 likes
  20. 8 hours ago

    Keep seing even new papers on the perpetuate the myth that the number of microbial cells outnumber human cells by 10:1. Estimates from 2016 are 1:1. What happened to ?

  21. Dec 26

    in the market – will technologies such as democratize academic ? And does transparency really outweigh anonymity in ? Eye-opening article by :

    3 likes

No results.

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.