Read on Twitter
1/5
I submitted my first signed review this week - which I was still conflicted on because it was less positive than hoped when I first read through.
I know some ppl (e.g. @fraser_lab @AlexisRohou ) share invited reviews on @bioarxiv. The question for me is timing.
I submitted my first signed review this week - which I was still conflicted on because it was less positive than hoped when I first read through.
I know some ppl (e.g. @fraser_lab @AlexisRohou ) share invited reviews on @bioarxiv. The question for me is timing.
2/5
In this particular case, I actually turned out to be the most positive of the referees. I.e. the manuscript was rejected. While I understand the motivation to share reviews publicly, couldn't this also bias reviewers opinion at the next journal this manuscript goes to??
In this particular case, I actually turned out to be the most positive of the referees. I.e. the manuscript was rejected. While I understand the motivation to share reviews publicly, couldn't this also bias reviewers opinion at the next journal this manuscript goes to??
3/5
Is it as simple as sharing my review at some delayed point in time? Does this help or hinder the community as a whole? How do you balance concerns about "science" vs. concerns about "scientists"?
Is it as simple as sharing my review at some delayed point in time? Does this help or hinder the community as a whole? How do you balance concerns about "science" vs. concerns about "scientists"?
4/5
As a scientist, I want to ensure collective progress, which I think requires #openaccess and transparency. As a human, I don't want to inadvertently impede another humans individual progress.
As a scientist, I want to ensure collective progress, which I think requires #openaccess and transparency. As a human, I don't want to inadvertently impede another humans individual progress.
5/5
I wish it was as simple as: "The science was faulty, that's fine to talk about it."
But there's more nuance to it than that...isn't there?
I wish it was as simple as: "The science was faulty, that's fine to talk about it."
But there's more nuance to it than that...isn't there?
