Johan K Sch<p>"I wish you all the best with the revision."</p><p>What a nice way to end a review!</p><p>Whatever criticism you may have and however you may think the manuscript might need to be improved to be publishable, you can always afford to be kind to the author.</p><p>And remember, even if the review is double blind, the editor knows who you are, so don't be a dick, OK?</p><p><a href="https://mastodon.nu/tags/PeerReview" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>PeerReview</span></a></p>
#peerreview
3 posts3 participants0 posts today
Continued thread
Update. Michael Szell (@mszll) will no longer review for #RoyalSociety journals, and has shared his review-decline message. Good move.
https://fediscience.org/@mszll@datasci.social/114245973896435127
fediscience.orgFediScience.org
Freude! Neue Publikation:
Jan Horstmann, Martin de la Iglesia, Caroline Jansky & Timo Steyer (2025). „Qualität im Diamond Open Access: 10 Jahre Zeitschrift für digitale Geisteswissenschaften.“ O-Bib. Das Offene Bibliotheksjournal 12(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.5282/o-bib/6127
doi.orgQualität im Diamond Open Access: 10 Jahre Zeitschrift für digitale Geisteswissenschaften
| o-bib. Das offene Bibliotheksjournal / Herausgeber VDB
Our open review process ensures transparency in academic publishing. Sterre Leufkens (Utrecht University) highlights the impact of Tan Arda Gedik’s work, emphasizing the need for better metrics in language acquisition research. Her assessment is publicly available, reinforcing the value of open and rigorous evaluation.
Read the article: https://doi.org/10.25189/2675-4916.2025.V6.N2.ID785
I'm delighted with my latest tree in the @Co_Biologists Forest of Biologists, not least because it has taught me a new word: marcesence. I challenge myself to drop this word into a conversation before the end of the day https://forest.biologists.com/landscape/?id=93279
The Forest of BiologistsLandscape - The Forest of Biologists
Pioneering #CERN scheme will pay publishers more if they hit #openscience targets
#Physics funder will provide financial incentives to encourage practices such as data sharing and transparent #peerreview.
Journals publish work from field openly and at no cost to authors, in exchange for bulk payments. Under initiative, CERN will pay more to publishers that adopt polices such as public or open peer review and linking research to data sets, and less to those that don't.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00183-3
www.nature.comPioneering CERN scheme will pay publishers more if they hit open-science targetsThe particle-physics funder will provide financial incentives to encourage practices such as data sharing and transparent peer review.
Continued thread
2/ The 18-month programme begins with 10 months of training in #PeerReview, #OpenScience, science communication, community engagement, research #reproducibility, and effective leadership, alongside fostering an inclusive research culture.
#PeerReview question:
Some journals do double-blind peer-reviewing, which is good (IMO). 
Some journals also require you to share analysis code, which is also good and for which people usually use #Github.
Most of the time the github repository of the authors is not anonymous... 
Is it possible to anonymise a github repository somehow, or use another system to share code just for peer-reviewing?
Edit: has anyone used Anonymous Github for this?
anonymous.4open.scienceAnonymous Github
Speaking of widespread low-quality scientific publication and the need to take care with words: https://retractionwatch.com/2025/02/10/vegetative-electron-microscopy-fingerprint-paper-mill/
#AI #GenerativeAI #LLM #AISlop #InformationOilSpill #AcademicPublishing #ScientificPublishing #PaperMill #PeerReview
The phrase was so strange it would have stood out even to a non-scientist. Yet “vegetative electron microscopy” had already made it past reviewers and editors at several journals when a Russian chemist and scientific sleuth noticed the odd wording in a now-retracted paper in Springer Nature’s Environmental Science and Pollution Research.Note the presence of Nature publishing group, notorious lately for their low-quality AI slop or AI-boosterism, and Elsevier, who is generally terrible.
Today, a Google Scholar search turns up nearly two dozen articles that refer to “vegetative electron microscopy” or “vegetative electron microscope,” including a paper from 2024 whose senior author is an editor at Elsevier, Retraction Watch has learned. The publisher told us it was “content” with the wording.
#AI #GenerativeAI #LLM #AISlop #InformationOilSpill #AcademicPublishing #ScientificPublishing #PaperMill #PeerReview
Retraction Watch · As a nonsense phrase of shady provenance makes the rounds, Elsevier defends its useThe origin of the phrase? The phrase was so strange it would have stood out even to a non-scientist. Yet “vegetative electron microscopy” had already made it past reviewers and editors at several j…
#OpenAI bans #Chinese accounts using #ChatGPT to edit code for social media #surveillance
The campaign, which OpenAI calls #PeerReview, saw the group prompt ChatGPT to generate sales pitches for a program those documents suggest was designed to monitor anti-Chinese sentiment on X, #Facebook , #YouTube , #Instagram and other platforms.
> BTW, this also confirms they’re analyzing what the rest of us are using their platform for
#privacy #china #security
Engadget · OpenAI bans Chinese accounts using ChatGPT to edit code for social media surveillance
Roses are red
Violets are blue
With minor revisions
I accept you 
Continued thread
Update. Nicholas Zyromski and David Stewart describe a method for teaching #PeerReview to surgical residents.
https://www.surgopensci.org/article/S2589-8450(24)00143-X/fulltext
Letztes Jahr habe ich (Tagungsabstracts mal ausgenommen) 16 Zeitschriften- und Sammelbandbeiträge begutachtet.
Dieses Jahr sind es schon 3 – ich sollte also besser *jetzt* schon daran denken, etwas langsam zu tun.
Replied to JuliaR
#Rstats #PeerReview #softwaredevelopment #OpenSource #programming #clustering #DataScience #Bioinformatics
I've just got the okay from my colleague. He will get in contact with you soon.
I will also try to help you out. I will also get in contact with you. By the way, I'm registrated as a potential reviewer for JOSS for quite some time.
Replied to JuliaR
I am occupied at the moment, but if you do not find somebody within a reasonable time, I will offer my help or try to ask a colleague of mine.
Hi all #Rstats enthusiasts!
I'm looking for someone who has time now to conduct a review of a piece of software for Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS). Details are here:
https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/7319
The review process is quite simple - you get a checklist and you run some tests. It's all open, on GitHub.
GitHub[REVIEW]: corrp: An R package for multiple correlation-like analysis and clustering in mixed data · Issue #7319 · openjournals/joss-reviews
Hi all #Python enthusiasts!
I'm looking for someone who has time now to conduct a review of a piece of software for Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS). Details are here:
https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/7491
The review process is quite simple - you get a checklist and you run some tests. It's all open, on GitHub.
GitHub[REVIEW]: jax-smfsb: A python library for stochastic systems biology modelling and inference · Issue #7491 · openjournals/joss-reviews
Replied to eLife
I've been through this "consultation" sequence several times. In my experience, it is useless and a waste. Particularly since the whole point of #eLife is post-publication review (the paper is already out in a preprint by definition using the eLife system).
For post-publication peer-review, there is no issue about being slow. Slow is fine. The paper is already available.
Since the authors decide when the paper is "in its final form", there is no issue about suggestions for extra work.
#eLife needs to stand by their decision to do post-publication peer review. They are not a "gate-keeping journal". That's fine. (It's actually good for the role they are playing.)