#PeerReview

2025-06-21

Detalle en RIBES: vamos a empezar a publicar los resultados de las revisiones de los papers. Hemos desarrollado un pequeño script en javascript con un poco de css para que el documento de revisiones aparezca como galerada diferenciada de las demás. El documento lo subimos como un pdf:

Aquí se puede ver un ejemplo: revistas.ucm.es/index.php/RIBE

Nos sumamos así a una mayor transparencia en los procesos de revisión respetando el peer review; todo siguiendo a algunas revistas como Nature (nature.com/articles/d41586-025) o Teknokultura (revistas.ucm.es/index.php/TEKN).

Hemos subido a codeberg el script y el css por si se quiere reutilizar: codeberg.org/revistaribes/revi
#ComunicaciónCientífica #PeerReview #OpenPeerReview #OJS

Se ve una imagen de la descarga de galeradas de los papers en PDF, EPUB, XML JATS y HTML de una página de un artículo de la revista RIBES. Se ve como galerada separada una de revisiones.
Bjørn Sætreviksatrevik@fediscience.org
2025-06-20

I think the "streamlined review" option offered by Collabra: Psychology (@collabraoa) is under-appreciated.

Have you received a #PeerReview that you think was unfair, overly critical, based on a misunderstanding, or on scientific criteria you disagree with? Do you think you could have responded to most of the issues if given a chance? You can resubmit the manuscript to Collabra, along with the previous review and explain how you would have responded to it. If the editor agrees, they may initiate a streamlined review process (rather than reviewing it as a novel submission). A more efficient process for you, and resources saved for the community!

#PeerReview #AcademicPublishing #ScientificJournals #AcademicChatter

Welche Inhalte erfassen wissenschaftliche Datenbanken – und mit welcher Tiefe & Qualität? Wie transparent sind Angaben zu #OpenAccess, #PeerReview oder Förderkontexten? Und wie verändert #KI den Zugang zu wissenschaftlicher Literatur?

Diese Fragen stehen im Zentrum der #TIB-Webkonferenz am 30. September, bei der sich zu Beginn die 3 wichtigsten fachübergreifenden wissenschaftlichen Datenbanken in einem gemeinsamen Online-Format präsentieren.

Alle Infos dazu hier: tib.eu/de/termine/detail/wisse

Elen Le Foll 🇫🇷 🇬🇧 🇩🇪ElenLeFoll@fediscience.org
2025-06-20

"Openness can only ever be researcher-led and contextual, not market-driven and indiscriminate."

Nice short piece by @Samuelmoore on Nature's announcement of a new #OpenReview process: samuelmoore.org/2025/06/19/tra

#OpenScience #PeerReview #academia

2025-06-20

Editor's comment received along with reviews:

"We want to kindly ask you to *reduce author self-citation*."

Seriously? This was building on (the team's) existing protocols, citing them and software [personal interest there]. Maybe there are some easier targets which can go because those shouldn't. #PeerReview #AcademicChatter

2025-06-19

Reason number 37 why reviewers get reviews done too late 🤔

#PeerReview #review #journal #science #education #cat #catsofmastodon #fluff

Extra fluffy Maine coone cat lying all the way across a laptop. His tail even covers the phone next to it. Laptop and cat are on a desk, with printed out pages of a paper under peer-review scattered across the desk.
2025-06-18

In the journal Nature, all peer review comments and responses will now be published.

"The exchanges between authors and referees should be seen as a crucial part of the scientific record, just as they are a key part of doing and disseminating research"

#Academics #Science #PeerReview #Research

nature.com/articles/d41586-025

2025-06-18

Nature journal opens the "black box" of science - and it's full of months-long polite academic disagreements about methodology! 📊 All peer review reports will now be public alongside published papers, turning scientific critique from backstage whispers to front-row transparency.

science.slashdot.org/story/25/

#Science #PeerReview #Nature

2025-06-18

PCI RR : Wiley devient le premier éditeur à adopter une position explicitement "hostile" à PCI, remettant en cause la compatibilité de ses journaux avec l’archivage et l’évaluation ouverte des preprints : osf.io/tn8mh
#peerreview #openscience

New Article: »Reviewing is Caring! Revaluing a Critical, but Invisibilized, Underappreciated, and Exploited Academic Practice«

How ChatGPT visually summarized the abstract of the paper on “Reviewing is Caring!”.

Together wie Mie Plotnikof (Aarhus University) and Matthias Wenzel (Leuphana University Lüneburg), I have written an essay proposing a care perspective to the way we organize academic peer review. The paper entitled “Reviewing is Caring! Revaluing a Critical, but Invisibilized, Underappreciated, and Exploited Academic Practice” has now been published open access in Organization. Check out the abstract below:

Reviewing is critical to advancing scholarly knowledge by assuring research standards and contouring what counts as novel. Yet, our system of reviewing submissions to journals is in crisis. With growing submission numbers, editors struggle to match these with qualified review capacities, unwillingly adding extra, often uneven, workloads on some reviewers, without equally distributing pressures or finding the most ‘ideal’ expert match. We propose to redress this issue in terms of care. Inspired by feminist care theory, we discuss how the current review system invisibilizes, underappreciates, and exploits the care invested in it. Furthermore, we suggest reconsidering the very organizing of the review system along the lines of care to reinvigorate the nurturing, knowledge-enhancing practices of reviewing. Specifically, we recommend (1) increasing the visibility of reviewing across journals, (2) recognizing reviewing as an inherent part of paid scholarly work, and (3) introducing cross-journal review limits. Together, we argue that such moves enable a more visibly appreciative and less easily exploitative organizing of reviewing as a scholarly practice of care that we and all science indeed rely on.

Finally, I created another visualization of the paper’s motif to share with the hashtag #1paper1meme:

#1paper1meme #careWork #Organization #PeerReview #reviewing #reviewingIsCaring

The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethicsjlme-journal.bsky.social@bsky.brid.gy
2025-06-11

Peer reviewers have long been the unsung heroes of academic journals. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics and its staff would like to thank all of the peer reviewers who worked to make our journal better in 2024. See their names and our thank-you here. #PeerReview www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

Thank You to Our 2024 Peer Rev...

2025-06-10

The unfiltered paper, with all the major deficits outlined by Kong's/New Phyt's #PeerReview experts still in it, is now online on bioRvix.

Worth et al. Whole #chloroplast #Genomes reveal a complex genetic legacy of #LostLineages, past radiations and #SecondaryContacts in the dominant temperate deciduous tree genus #Fagus

doi.org/10.1101/2025.06.03.653

Being not limited, we moved a few more figures from the supplement to the main text 😎

figshare.com/projects/Suppleme

#PhyloNetworks #reticulate #evolution

Nick Byrd, Ph.D.ByrdNick@nerdculture.de
2025-06-09

Peer review is still crucial in #science and #scholarship.

A beautiful #preprint
- finds few scholars get formal #education in #peerReview.
- distills scholars' ideas about improving peer review.
- offers recommendations for #training and implementation.

osf.io/preprints/osf/89xju

Figure 2. Categorical responses to whether participants have received peer review training (A), received direct feedback on a peer review they wrote (B), written peer reviews for another student (C), and written peer reviews for journals (D). Bar heights indicate the number of participants per response category, and bar colors represent their academic degree.Figure 3. Responses to the Likert-scale questions ranging from 1 “not at all” to 7 “very much” for the three different academic degrees. Each grey dot represents a rating from one participant. Black dots and error bars indicate the mean and standard error. Box plots show the median (thick black line), the interquartile range (box spanning the first and third quartiles), and the range of values within 1.5 times the interquartile range from the first and third quartiles(whiskers).Figure 4. Subcategories emerging from the 91 free-text responses to the question of what participants would hope to learn from feedback on their peer reviews, categorized into fifteen main questions and further grouped into six main categories.Figure 5. Example of a learning design focusing on manuscript writing, revising, and peer reviewing created with the LDTool (University of Wollongong, https://needle.uow.edu.au/ldt/). The learning design implements two peer review loops facilitating author-reviewer dialogues and feedback on peer reviews. Examples for resources include Oxford Abstracts—a free academic conference online platform with abstract management features including collecting submissions, assessing submissions, predefining questions or assessment criteria, and communicating decisions; anonymized peer review examples from the teacher’s own publication history; reviewer guidelines and instructions from field-specific journals; and manuscript assessment criteria from field-specific journals.
2025-06-06

I'm one who thinks that #AI is far from ready to do #PeerReview. But I follow the discussion and often see suggestions that AI can do some of the auxiliary jobs, like recommending humans to do peer review.

Here's a new study on the "recommending humans" job.
arxiv.org/abs/2506.00074

Six tested #LLMs "consistently favor[ed] senior scholars. Representation biases persist, replicating gender imbalances (reflecting male predominance), under-representing Asian scientists, and over-representing White scholars. Despite some diversity in institutional and collaboration networks, models favor highly cited and productive scholars, reinforcing the rich-get-richer effect while offering limited geographical representation."

2025-06-06

Peer review files are one of my favourite trends in academic publishing.

I open them and I get to learn more about the science and the authors’ approaches to experimental work — and sometimes I get to break out the popcorn and read a nice juicy argument between Reviewer 2 and the authors.

With apologies to the authors, I find myself hoping for both: it’s like trash TV - you don’t want to see it, but you also do.

#Academia #Publishing #PeerReview #OpenScience

N-gated Hacker Newsngate
2025-06-05

🎓🔍 Oh, what a revelation! are just glorified keyboard warriors, engaging in a nerdy battle of wits under the guise of "peer review." 🙄💼 The suggested "solution"? Publish their names—because nothing deters trolls like a little , right? 😂📜
mnky9800n.substack.com/p/peer-

Christoph Hornungc_hornung@bildung.social
2025-06-03

"Most errors are not caught in #PeerReview, but in replication studies." Marcus Huber @quantumjournal @ #OpenScience Day @TU Wien

Client Info

Server: https://mastodon.social
Version: 2025.04
Repository: https://github.com/cyevgeniy/lmst