@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
"[...] 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
"[...] 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
MT @scifanz: "many scientists argue that time spent peer reviewing would be better spent doing science." http://t.co/22CN1n7q0v
"[...] 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
@OmoNsasi @Richard56 Excerpt from the following piece that explains the many flaws with classical peer review http://t.co/QbsgjZ8gpj
"Ironically, a faith based rather than an evidence based process lies at heart of science" old piece on #peerreview http://t.co/jcwbEIiVC5
@Oisille @timeshighered some additional reading: http://t.co/jcwbEIiVC5 (2010) & http://t.co/FQnRxrUHLQ (2015) same guy on a proper tear
The more of it I experience, more convinced I become that #PeerReview is the opposite of useful. Mostly gatekeeping http://t.co/r1zW6l3dft
@CameronNeylon @cshperspectives But reviews of reviewing have NOT produced encouraging results, e.g. many refs in http://t.co/8mdoIGPEOJ
"peer review..is an ineffective, slow, expensive, biased, inefficient, anti-innovatory...easily abused lottery" http://t.co/Mfh6RhKEiJ #FSSC
"peer review..is an ineffective, slow, expensive, biased, inefficient, anti-innovatory...easily abused lottery" http://t.co/Mfh6RhKEiJ #FSSC
If like me you're enjoying @Richard56 's provocation about problems with peer review, see http://t.co/Mfh6RhKEiJ #FSSC
Classical peer review: an empty gun. http://t.co/lFPALcSDnB via @mariawang #FCCS #scicomm
Para discutir: revisão entre pares como questão de fé. http://t.co/yYnb3kY9C7
If like me you're enjoying @Richard56 's provocation about problems with peer review, see http://t.co/Mfh6RhKEiJ #FSSC
If like me you're enjoying @Richard56 's provocation about problems with peer review, see http://t.co/Mfh6RhKEiJ #FSSC
Classical peer review: an empty gun http://t.co/3fUX45vxpO #breastcancerresearch
"peer review..is an ineffective, slow, expensive, biased, inefficient, anti-innovatory...easily abused lottery" http://t.co/Mfh6RhKEiJ #FSSC
"peer review..is an ineffective, slow, expensive, biased, inefficient, anti-innovatory...easily abused lottery" http://t.co/Mfh6RhKEiJ #FSSC
"peer review..is an ineffective, slow, expensive, biased, inefficient, anti-innovatory...easily abused lottery" http://t.co/Mfh6RhKEiJ #FSSC
"peer review..is an ineffective, slow, expensive, biased, inefficient, anti-innovatory...easily abused lottery" http://t.co/Mfh6RhKEiJ #FSSC
@UlrikStervbo @Stephen_Curry No reference list provided for the talk, but see the bibliography of http://t.co/8mdoIGPEOJ
@UlrikStervbo @Stephen_Curry The results ARE out there. And they're bad. See the review article at http://t.co/8mdoIGPEOJ
"peer review..is an ineffective, slow, expensive, biased, inefficient, anti-innovatory...easily abused lottery" http://t.co/Mfh6RhKEiJ #FSSC
"peer review..is an ineffective, slow, expensive, biased, inefficient, anti-innovatory...easily abused lottery" http://t.co/Mfh6RhKEiJ #FSSC
If like me you're enjoying @Richard56 's provocation about problems with peer review, see http://t.co/Mfh6RhKEiJ #FSSC
"peer review..is an ineffective, slow, expensive, biased, inefficient, anti-innovatory...easily abused lottery" http://t.co/Mfh6RhKEiJ #FSSC
"peer review..is an ineffective, slow, expensive, biased, inefficient, anti-innovatory...easily abused lottery" http://t.co/Mfh6RhKEiJ #FSSC
If like me you're enjoying @Richard56 's provocation about problems with peer review, see http://t.co/Mfh6RhKEiJ #FSSC
If like me you're enjoying @Richard56 's provocation about problems with peer review, see http://t.co/Mfh6RhKEiJ #FSSC
"peer review..is an ineffective, slow, expensive, biased, inefficient, anti-innovatory...easily abused lottery" http://t.co/Mfh6RhKEiJ #FSSC
"peer review..is an ineffective, slow, expensive, biased, inefficient, anti-innovatory...easily abused lottery" http://t.co/Mfh6RhKEiJ #FSSC
"peer review..is an ineffective, slow, expensive, biased, inefficient, anti-innovatory...easily abused lottery" http://t.co/Mfh6RhKEiJ #FSSC
"peer review..is an ineffective, slow, expensive, biased, inefficient, anti-innovatory...easily abused lottery" http://t.co/Mfh6RhKEiJ #FSSC
If like me you're enjoying @Richard56 's provocation about problems with peer review, see http://t.co/Mfh6RhKEiJ #FSSC
If like me you're enjoying @Richard56 's provocation about problems with peer review, see http://t.co/Mfh6RhKEiJ #FSSC
Classical peer review: An empty gun http://t.co/TJeSG2J1KZ
Classic Peer Review: An Empty Gun: http://t.co/nwYw6LUhzp http://t.co/owPSw7Jz8B
"If peer review were a drug, it would not be allowed onto the market." http://t.co/nwYw6LUhzp http://t.co/kEc8hbYhi9
Classic Peer Review: An Empty Gun: http://t.co/nwYw6LUhzp http://t.co/owPSw7Jz8B
"If peer review were a drug, it would not be allowed onto the market." http://t.co/nwYw6LUhzp http://t.co/kEc8hbYhi9
"If peer review were a drug, it would not be allowed onto the market." http://t.co/nwYw6LUhzp http://t.co/kEc8hbYhi9
"If peer review were a drug, it would not be allowed onto the market." http://t.co/nwYw6LUhzp http://t.co/kEc8hbYhi9
"If peer review were a drug, it would not be allowed onto the market." http://t.co/nwYw6LUhzp http://t.co/kEc8hbYhi9
"If peer review were a drug, it would not be allowed onto the market." http://t.co/nwYw6LUhzp http://t.co/kEc8hbYhi9
Classic Peer Review: An Empty Gun: http://t.co/nwYw6LUhzp http://t.co/owPSw7Jz8B
"If peer review were a drug, it would not be allowed onto the market." http://t.co/nwYw6LUhzp http://t.co/kEc8hbYhi9
"If peer review were a drug, it would not be allowed onto the market." http://t.co/nwYw6LUhzp http://t.co/kEc8hbYhi9
"If peer review were a drug, it would not be allowed onto the market." http://t.co/vELjT84OVv http://t.co/Srin3GTGKu
"If peer review were a drug, it would not be allowed onto the market." http://t.co/nwYw6LUhzp http://t.co/kEc8hbYhi9
"If peer review were a drug, it would not be allowed onto the market." http://t.co/nwYw6LUhzp http://t.co/kEc8hbYhi9
"If peer review were a drug, it would not be allowed onto the market." http://t.co/nwYw6LUhzp http://t.co/kEc8hbYhi9
Classic Peer Review: An Empty Gun: http://t.co/nwYw6LUhzp http://t.co/owPSw7Jz8B
"If peer review were a drug, it would not be allowed onto the market." http://t.co/nwYw6LUhzp http://t.co/kEc8hbYhi9
"If peer review were a drug, it would not be allowed onto the market." http://t.co/nwYw6LUhzp http://t.co/kEc8hbYhi9
Classic Peer Review: An Empty Gun: http://t.co/nwYw6LUhzp http://t.co/owPSw7Jz8B
"If peer review were a drug, it would not be allowed onto the market." http://t.co/nwYw6LUhzp http://t.co/kEc8hbYhi9
Great quotes in this paper demonstrating that peer review is broken. U still need to critically appraise 4 yourself. http://t.co/XpyDq3fsmk
Great quotes in this paper demonstrating that peer review is broken. U still need to critically appraise 4 yourself. http://t.co/XpyDq3fsmk
@KellyOSullivan @APSDiversity @HopeJahren from former EIC of BMJ. http://t.co/ZOGvs8LOUP Classical peer review show it is ineffective
@KellyOSullivan @APSDiversity @HopeJahren from former EIC of BMJ. http://t.co/ZOGvs8LOUP Classical peer review show it is ineffective
@cindywu @dennyluan Our model was largely inspired by some writings of @Richard56 (http://t.co/ZOGvs8LOUP)
That reproducibility is such a big problem points to classical prepub peer review not working #Force2015 http://t.co/pX0UljzqQc
That reproducibility is such a big problem points to classical prepub peer review not working #Force2015 http://t.co/pX0UljzqQc
That reproducibility is such a big problem points to classical prepub peer review not working #Force2015 http://t.co/pX0UljzqQc
That reproducibility is such a big problem points to classical prepub peer review not working #Force2015 http://t.co/pX0UljzqQc
That reproducibility is such a big problem points to classical prepub peer review not working #Force2015 http://t.co/pX0UljzqQc
That reproducibility is such a big problem points to classical prepub peer review not working #Force2015 http://t.co/pX0UljzqQc
Classical peer review does not do what it purports to do (ID errors) http://t.co/pX0UljzqQc but it does delay science http://t.co/vnUdQQR2OH
Classical peer review: an empty gun http://t.co/LLMIIAu2KH #breastcancerresearch
Peer review does not equal truth. http://t.co/MBVlLVPs7p
Peer review does not equal truth. http://t.co/MBVlLVPs7p
Peer review does not equal truth. http://t.co/MBVlLVPs7p
@RussellSaunder1 FWIW, I don't think "the original study was peer reviewed" is the strongest plank of defense: http://t.co/JDigf7JsZ1
@TechCrunch @MichaelHousman Encourage you to read an essay by former BMJ EIC @Richard56 on the flaws of peer review. http://t.co/MBVlLVPs7p
@jimcoan @adametkin We're not happy ignoring the fact that reviews can take years. Little evidence of their benefit http://t.co/UGXbjq6vXT
@thosjleeper http://t.co/xhtxLsb4VZ (We like this one)
@Zavie @IgorCarron @Richard56 You may be interested in reading more on peer review by the speaker here: http://t.co/mnDiMk4RqL
Classical peer review: an empty gun http://t.co/SpNDCTvCXW #breastcancerresearch
RT: The problems of classical peer review by @Richard56 former EIC of BMJ http://t.co/xHQpiV2YDM
.@ClimateOfGavin @mtobis @VariabilityBlog The problems of classical peer review by @Richard56 former EIC of BMJ http://t.co/ZOGvs8MmKn
.@ClimateOfGavin @mtobis @VariabilityBlog The problems of classical peer review by @Richard56 former EIC of BMJ http://t.co/ZOGvs8MmKn
retweeted this eye-opening article on peer-review yesterday thanks to another tweeter, can't get out of its magnetism http://t.co/wPuzajQDEF
Classical peer review is an empty gun http://t.co/mnDiMk4RqL | @Richard56
Classical peer review: an empty gun http://t.co/fhuuuKAkD1 #breastcancerresearch .1.9billions $ is the cost of peer review process.! Waste
@d_mainwaring @adametkin Opinion versus tests. Which should we follow as scientists? http://t.co/Ljr9agEhkg
"the decision to publish was... accounted for by...10 to 20% by the content" | http://t.co/Ljr9agEhkg @Richard56
Classical peer review is an empty gun http://t.co/mnDiMk4RqL | @Richard56
Classical peer review is an empty gun http://t.co/mnDiMk4RqL | @Richard56
Regarding peer review, a critical article: http://t.co/IGa9ELzKa9