RT @joshmnicholson: You can have a child quicker than you can report your scientific findings. Maybe this would be okay if peer review was…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @boehninglab: Or choose not to publish in a glam journal 🤷🏻♂️ https://t.co/knXajvC2CQ
Or choose not to publish in a glam journal 🤷🏻♂️ https://t.co/knXajvC2CQ
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @joshmnicholson: You can have a child quicker than you can report your scientific findings. Maybe this would be okay if peer review was…
RT @joshmnicholson: You can have a child quicker than you can report your scientific findings. Maybe this would be okay if peer review was…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @joshmnicholson: You can have a child quicker than you can report your scientific findings. Maybe this would be okay if peer review was…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @joshmnicholson: You can have a child quicker than you can report your scientific findings. Maybe this would be okay if peer review was…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @joshmnicholson: You can have a child quicker than you can report your scientific findings. Maybe this would be okay if peer review was…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
RT @seanrife: Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first chil…
Can confirm. The following events happened, in order: 1. I submitted a paper. 2. My wife became pregnant with our first child. 3. My child was born. 4. My paper was rejected. MY WIFE LITERALLY GREW A HUMAN IN THE TIME IT TOOK THEM TO REJECT MY PAPER. htt
You can have a child quicker than you can report your scientific findings. Maybe this would be okay if peer review was actually effective in weeding out errors but it's not. Paper: https://t.co/QoYrp6a14o Critique on PR: https://t.co/uQHQ1ZTl5n https://t.
And I would argue the most essential piece of all on peer-review: https://t.co/kWIqlRPms3 (You don't have to agree with it all, but it marshals a lot of evidence and helped shift my unexamined assumptions.) https://t.co/YR2PvWzBm3
@STEMgobble @AGoulburn This is a great overview https://t.co/5XRnIu52DF
@cshperspectives @Protohedgehog @Villavelius @GinnyBarbour @cane51000 @acochran12733 @HansZauner @JMDugan @ernestopriego @CharlesOppenh @ResearchGate @Sci_Hub @Science_Open @PLOSMedicine I'm sure this is not new to you, but I always find this article very
@Protohedgehog "Gold standard" doesn't mean "good", it just means "what we judge the value of other things against" As always, see https://t.co/kWIqlRPms3
"Faith based rather than an evidence based process lies at the heart of science"- Richard Smith Former Editor BMJ https://t.co/MOAerYUc0z
Eye-opening article by @Richard56 on #PeerReview: costly,slow,time consuming,unable to detect flaws,biased https://t.co/1tFdYpaehp
@Protohedgehog @jeremyfaust I remind you of this. https://t.co/kWIqlRPms3 It's questionable whether it even works for research, let alone for marches.
RT @MikeTaylor: "If peer review was a drug it wouldn't be allowed on the market. No evidence of benefits, lots of evidence of flaws" https:…
RT @MikeTaylor: "If peer review was a drug it wouldn't be allowed on the market. No evidence of benefits, lots of evidence of flaws" https:…
RT @MikeTaylor: "If peer review was a drug it wouldn't be allowed on the market. No evidence of benefits, lots of evidence of flaws" https:…
RT @MikeTaylor: "If peer review was a drug it wouldn't be allowed on the market. No evidence of benefits, lots of evidence of flaws" https:…
"If peer review was a drug it wouldn't be allowed on the market. No evidence of benefits, lots of evidence of flaws" https://t.co/kWIqlRPms3 https://t.co/ewAh0sJ9Ht
RT @pcronald: If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market https://t.co/vj9ls7hDk8
RT @pcronald: If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market https://t.co/vj9ls7hDk8
RT @pcronald: If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market https://t.co/vj9ls7hDk8
RT @pcronald: If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market https://t.co/vj9ls7hDk8
RT @pcronald: If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market https://t.co/vj9ls7hDk8
If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market https://t.co/vj9ls7hDk8
RT @CoyneoftheRealm: "Classical peer review: an empty gun" Classic paper by @Richard56 https://t.co/PIfMIfAypj
"Classical peer review: an empty gun" Classic paper by @Richard56 https://t.co/PIfMIfAypj
@Richard56 greatest sentence ever published in a medical journal https://t.co/DjGkYm3xxd https://t.co/g1lMfQUgwA
Classical peer review: an empty gun https://t.co/UAZgHwj8HY
"Classical peer review: an empty gun" https://t.co/irdYHhwfuX
RT @briandavidearp: Classical peer review: an empty gun https://t.co/VUMoCZj826 https://t.co/tHETcquAM1
Classical peer review: an empty gun https://t.co/FE05rjZrL7 https://t.co/WQ43VFT7jJ
Ironically, scientists aren’t very good at using evidence to drive best practise in the way we do science. https://t.co/QXZbWe27Mi
RT @RobDarbyCanberr: If the reviewer is sympathetic to the paper s/he can be helpful; but that is like a colleague checking and does not…
RT @RobDarbyCanberr: If the reviewer is sympathetic to the paper s/he can be helpful; but that is like a colleague checking and does not…
If the reviewer is sympathetic to the paper s/he can be helpful; but that is like a colleague checking and does not ensure quality https://t.co/XUb8Z7BGDQ
briandavidearp: Classical peer review: an empty gun https://t.co/kd0Bf9pzQP https://t.co/7HBuDOy2vH
Classical peer review: an empty gun https://t.co/VUMoCZj826 https://t.co/tHETcquAM1
RT @HsiWanMu: Classical peer review: an empty gun https://t.co/Ub3NoAGlKB
Classical peer review: an empty gun https://t.co/Ub3NoAGlKB
RT @MikeTaylor: @o_guest @Villavelius The role of peer-review in quality control is GREATLY overrated. https://t.co/hFW6TWutPM https://t.co…
RT @MikeTaylor: @o_guest @Villavelius The role of peer-review in quality control is GREATLY overrated. https://t.co/hFW6TWutPM https://t.co…
@o_guest @Villavelius The role of peer-review in quality control is GREATLY overrated. https://t.co/hFW6TWutPM https://t.co/nijABNcyrX
RT @briandavidearp: Classical peer review: an empty gun | Breast Cancer Research | Richard Smith https://t.co/31YkMEqOdH
RT @briandavidearp: Classical peer review: an empty gun | Breast Cancer Research | Richard Smith https://t.co/31YkMEqOdH
RT @AllenStairs: Perhaps the greatest sentence in *any* per-reviewed journal. https://t.co/cwtLbpSY2L https://t.co/GIRaJan8CM
@MSalt69 Fascinating examples. "Rigour of peer review" fails, see https://t.co/nijABNu9jv and https://t.co/hFW6TWM4Hk [1/3]
Perhaps the greatest sentence in *any* per-reviewed journal. https://t.co/cwtLbpSY2L https://t.co/GIRaJan8CM
Classical peer review: an empty gun | Breast Cancer Research | Richard Smith https://t.co/31YkMEqOdH
@mchris4duke Here's the most important thing I know about peer-review: https://t.co/nijABNcyrX
RT @Vickerbry: @MikeTaylor I was going to say "I'm sure the DOI is working though" ... but it's not https://t.co/ZKnXAdTnjq @BioMedCentral
@MikeTaylor I was going to say "I'm sure the DOI is working though" ... but it's not https://t.co/ZKnXAdTnjq @BioMedCentral
Dear @BioMedCentral, it is NEVER ACCEPTABLE for a working URL to stop working after a redesign: https://t.co/fMcQKe0pdF CC @Vickerbry
@MikeTaylor it's here after @BioMedCentral's redesign https://t.co/8sL6dNV1b0 @BCRJournal not sure why their redirects aren't working
BAD NEWS: https://t.co/fMcQKe0pdF is broken. GOOD NEWS: https://t.co/AzlB4uijZG works just fine. Yay for PubMed Central and OA archives!
Important essay: Classical peer review: an empty gun https://t.co/0j6LXt4yCT
@Humanisticus @AuntieDote @IzzyKamikaze Peer Review: An Empty Gun http://t.co/p2eO1S1rvr
RT @theWinnower: If we are to be scientific about peer review then we must concede that it does not limit most major errors in work. http:/…
If we are to be scientific about peer review then we must concede that it does not limit most major errors in work. http://t.co/QbsgjZ8gpj
@forensictoxguy Not so much "bad" as "Does it do what it purports to do?" Evidence it improves quality is mixed. http://t.co/R3M3CV69GZ
@drugmonkeyblog @kwbroman Serious is not the same as effective. See: http://t.co/QbsgjZ8gpj
"[...] many scientists argue that time spent peer reviewing would be better spent doing science." http://t.co/M4w3bGTFNt #openscience
"[...] many scientists argue that time spent peer reviewing would be better spent doing science." http://t.co/M4w3bGTFNt #openscience
"[...] many scientists argue that time spent peer reviewing would be better spent doing science." http://t.co/M4w3bGTFNt #openscience