50 Years of Language Insufficiency
I share thoughts on the genesis of A Language Insufficiency Hypothesis, 50 (or more) years in the making. (Webcams take great selfies – subject notwithstanding. 🧐😉)
#reading #writing #reviewing #proofing #philosophy #language #books #publishing #lih #communication #clarity #hypothesis #selfie #author
Having read and listened to There Is No Anti-Memetics Division by QNTM, I share my high-level impression of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hQx7ca8Owc
#bookreview #books #writing #editing #reviewing #readingcommunity #Novel #audiobooks #audible #paperback #hardcover #video #youtube
Status so far: 3 yesterday, 6 today. Of these:
- one likely written by LLM
- one with two reference letters written by the same person
- one with the same reference letter written by two people
That’s all I can handle for the day. 15 out of 36 applications done, 7 days until deadline (funding agency screwed up) #reviewing #academia #academicchatter #sshrc
In a week in which #DJI got rapped over the knuckles (quite rightly!), I find myself unboxing… a DJI Mic 3. Join me for one part unboxing, about eight parts media ethics lessons. Plus elephant dung, for some reason.
https://ko-fi.com/post/Unboxing-DJI-Mic-3-With-a-side-order-of-media-et-Y8Y61O3F1H
I just placed an order with my local book store for "Life After Cars" by the folks at @TheWarOnCars. Keep an eye out because I'm gonna be #reviewing this book on The Bryant Review soon!
How do you think gaming journalists should review remasters and rereleases?
Not considering remakes, because those are usually new games built from the ground up.
...
Note that both options can be read either way:
Reviewing Mario Galaxy 1&2 on its own merits could mean pushing up the score because it's still an excellent game at heart regardless of the remaster changes, or it could drag down the score because its design could now be considered dated and derivative by new audience regardless of its legacy.
Reviewing Mario Galaxy 1&2 with context could mean dragging down the score because the port is too expensive and minimal to justify the tiny upgrade over the original regardless of how good the game is, or it could push up the score because of how important its legacy is for gaming and how it should be playable on modern consoles again.
#gaming #games #videoGames #journalism #reviewing #poll #askFedi
The Sweet Spot Of IMDb Is 6.3-7.6
https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://aftermath.site/imdb-review-scale-bad-broken
@libroraptor I'm just having one of those, too. Even tough there are more than ten scientists signing, I have the feeling that the paper has been written by an excited first year PhD, discovering things in recent literature that have been known for over 40 years, and so presenting things as original, when they are not. And that the paper has been sent off to the journal without a profound read through by the other authors. And I have the feeling that because of pressure to publish, more often than not, unfinished papers are sent to the journals, relying on reviewers to do the job. And often they don't do, and then we end with these papers published ....
#academicchatter
#Reviewing
Bored - PS5 - Gonna Pick A Game To Stream
I need to spend time rewatching my favorite series and write stuff about them.
May not end up with anything ground breaking, but at least I would have done something.
A coworker recently asked me for tips on how to review code.
I looked around for good resources, but found none. Zero. Which was weird.
Sat down and wrote a few notes, but then I realized I could turn this into a blog post to help more people.
https://endler.dev/2025/how-to-review-code/
Not sure how to get the post in front of people who need to see it, but if you know someone it could help, please share.
I wrote a follow-up text on my previous blog post: This time it's about #LLM use and #peer #reviewing https://nilsreiter.de/blog/2025/llms-and-science-part-2
Key take-aways: i) Of course, (some) reviews are LLM-produced or influenced. ii) Of course, LLMs are being optimized (= specifically trained) for doing peer review.
Scholars sneaking phrases into papers to fool AI reviewers
“Why Generative AI Coding Tools And Agents Do Not Work For Me”, Miguel Grinberg (https://blog.miguelgrinberg.com/post/why-generative-ai-coding-tools-and-agents-do-not-work-for-me).
Via HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44294633
On Lobsters: https://lobste.rs/s/gsci0f/why_generative_ai_coding_tools_agents_do
#GenAI #AI #LLMs #Programming #VibeCoding #Quality #Reviewing #Productivity
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
Reading someone else's review of a book I had reviewed, was reminded of how hard it is to be specific about why a book doesn't work for you without spoiling the whole plot, but not so vague the review is interchangeable with that of any other book.
(It usually takes me hours to write ONE review)
@romancelandia @bookstodon
Randomly thinking about the fact that I have 630 book reviews posted to my blog, starting in February 2008 (and despite a ~six years long reading slump).
Is that a backlist?
A lire : une note de recommandations publiée par l'#INRAE sur les pratiques intègres et éthiques de #PublicationScientifique et de #Reviewing à l’heure de la #ScienceOuverte.
#IntegritéScientifique #RechercheResponsable
I have resigned as a reviewer for the Royal Society. I encourage others to do the same.
Dear editors,
Today I saw some news about the Royal Society which made me very uncomfortable. As a result, I am afraid I will withdraw my voluntary reviewing work for Royal Society. I will not after all be completing this review for Royal Society Open Science.
[The rest of the letter: http://mcld.co.uk/blog/2025/letter-to-royal-society-about-reviewing-and-code-of-conduct.html]
#royalsociety #elonmusk #science #reviewing #academicchatter
@romancelandia @bookstodon #Romancelandia #Reading #Reviewing
As people leave the Nazi bar (substack), we can help spread the word so they find their audiences. So, here's one such newsletter that's usually only about reading and books:
