Lmst

If you have a manuscript ready to submit to a peer reviewed journal in Public Administration, I’m willing to give it a collegial review before you submit to the journal. Practitioners are especially welcome. I’ll recuse myself if it comes to a journal I edit or review for. #PeerReview #PublicAdministration

Gaming the peer review system: Evidence for a review mill in medicine highlights the need to ensure reviewer integrity

https://microblogging.infodocs.eu/2026/03/12/gaming-the-peer-review-system-evidence-for-a-review-mill-in-medicine-highlights-the-need-to-ensure-reviewer-integrity/

#BiomedicalResearch #DorothyVMBishop #MngelesOviedoGarca #PeerReview #RenAquarius #ResearchEthics #ReviewMills #ScientificCommunication

How does science decide what is “validated”?

Peer review, replication, debate… Scientific knowledge is not a fixed truth but a process. This article explores how results are tested, challenged, and sometimes overturned. A useful reminder that doubt is part of science.

🔗 https://www.pourlascience.fr/sr/regards/les-tribulations-de-la-validation-scientifique-28834.php

#Science #Research #PeerReview #Reproducibility #ScientificMethod

Follow the authors Osama Mohammed Afzal and Iryna Gurevych from the Ubiquitous Knowledge Processing (UKP) Lab, Technische Universität Darmstadt, as well as Preslav Nakov from MBZUAI (Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence) and Tom Hope from Ai2.

See you this #EACL2026 in Rabat 🕌!

#UKPLab #NLP #NLProc #AI #PeerReview #AIforScience #ScientificPublishing #NoveltyDetection #Evaluation #OpenScience

Got a #PeerReview request from an electronic #OpenAccess journal that charges APCs. So far so normal.

But they charge an additional fee of US$100 per page if a paper exceeds page count limits. Admittedly, those are set realistically (for my field at least). But in an electronic journal?

#NightshiftEditor

Another #PeerReview done.

Manuscript c3,000 words
Review c1,400 words
1hr

A very profession-focused piece, i.e. it allowed to focus on conceptual issues and questions. Nice read for own reflection as well.

Why Anthropic’s internal reports are being treated as if they were rigorous, honest and objective peer-reviewed science is beyond my understanding.

There’s something deeply unsettling in seeing those rapacious for-profit companies taking the place of universities in scientific knowledge production.

I was already very upset to see Google’s advertorial articles published in major scientific journals, now I’m very concerned by the media and scientific crowd bypassing peer-review and reproducibility altogether.

This cannot be good.

#ai #anthropic #science #peerReview

**"📚 Calling all researchers! Submit your papers to JMA (Jabalpur Management Association) for fast peer review and international visibility.

✅ ISSN 2395-8127
✅ Fast Peer Review
✅ Global Reach

Submit your manuscript today!
🔗 https://zurl.co/aJeA2
| 📧 publish.jma@gmail.com
| 📞 +91 62627 52168

#JMAJournal #ResearchSubmission #AcademicExcellence #PeerReview #ManagementResearch"**

In the Plant Bioinformatics course this week, students learn how to critically assess papers in scientific journals.

Focus:
• Is the data available?
• Are the analyses reproducible?
• Are the claims supported by the evidence?

Training the next generation of scientists to value reproducibility and transparency.

Course material:
https://github.com/bpucker/PlantBioinformatics

#RNAseq #Bioinformatics #OpenScience #PeerReview
@PuckerLab

Summary of our "Plant Bioinformatics" course content. Generated with ChatGPT. Details: https://github.com/bpucker/PlantBioinformatics

First two months of 2026 in #PeerReview

I've reviewed:
4 papers
3 grant applications

I've submitted:
1 paper
1 grant application
so I've “requested” ~6 reviews from the system.

So I'm in credit at the Bank of Peer Review so far.

#LifeOfPI

This AI can improve your peer review — and make it more polite

#AI #PeerReview #ScientificPublishing

https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00536-6

How do academics judge journals?

For > 1000 in #socialSciences and #humanities
- claiming fair/transparent #peerReview, having an accurate title, and disclosing author contact info increased credibility.
- reflective thinking predicted lower credibility.

https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2042

"Short scenarios were created using the positive and negative aspects of journal characteristics. Each scenario describes a situation in which one is confronted with an imaginary scientific journal. The journal is described briefly based on the aforementioned characteristics. A total of eight scenarios were created (all available in Table A2 and in Table S3 at https://osf. io/vf3tx/), combining all the positive and negative aspects of the three characteristics (Table 3). An example of a single scenario with two positive and one negative characteristic (Scenario 4) is presented in Table 4."

"all main effects and interactions are s tically significant, with large effect sizes for the main effects and two-way interactions, and a medium effect size for the three-way interaction (Cohen 1988). Each positive journal characteristic significantly increased perceived credibility. When two or three positive features were combined, an interaction effect occurred whereby the shift in the journal's credibility was additionally strengthened, i.e., it was greater than the cumulative effect of the individual characteristics (Figure 1). The post hoc Tukey HSD test shows that most scenario pairs differed significantly in credibility ratings."

"The effect of publishing expectations was statistically significant: scholars with higher publishing expectations (HPE) gave lower credibility ratings than scholars with LPE, suggesting a more critical evaluation. However, the effect size was small (ηₚ 2 = 0.014). No significant difference was found between [social science] and [humanities] scholars.

The number of positive characteristics had a large effect on credibility ratings, with a greater number of positive characteristics leading to notably higher credibility ratings. As illustrated in Figure 2 , this increase follows an exponential trend, consistent with the interaction effects shown in Figure 1, where combinations of positive attributes enhance credibility beyond the sum of the individual attributes."

"The correlation between [reflection test] scores and the average rating across all scenarios was negative and low, but statistically significant (Table 8), suggesting that more reflective participants tended to rate journals more critically. Specifically, a significant negative correlation was obtained for journals with zero or one positive journal characteristics and at the same time with three or two negative attributes. However, the ratings of journals with two and three positive attributes did not correlate with the [reflection test]."

"Exploratory Factor Analysis ...yielded a two-factor solution accounting for 59.39% of the total variance. Component 1 (eigenvalue of 3.593) explained 44.91% of the variance, whilst Component 2 (eigenvalue of 1.158) explained 14.48%. The structure matrix (see Table 9) shows that Component 1 included low-quality journals, and and Component 2 included high-quality journals. Journals with mixed characteristics loaded on both components"

In #Nature there is recent paper about and #AI model that aims to soften the tone of that #SecondReviewer 🙂

"This AI can improve your peer review — and make it more polite"
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00536-6

Details in: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-026-01188-x

#science #PeerReview

Biology Open has embarked on an initiative to find out if the time from submission to first decision after #PeerReview can be greatly reduced, whilst maintaining our high standards of quality. Watch the full video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=QgR1dF-nuSU

#ScientificPublishing

An emerging problem in peer review: almost nobody wants to be the reviewer. Article links to open access papers. https://theconversation.com/the-peer-review-system-is-breaking-down-heres-how-we-can-fix-it-275317 #science #publishing #peerreview #writing #education #academia #research #reading #university

Africa: AUC Chairperson Received H.E. @aprm_marierose, CEO of the African Peer Review Mechanism (@aprmorg): [African Union] H.E. Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, Chairperson of the AU Commission, received H.E. @APRM_MarieRose, CEO of the African Peer Review Mechanism (@APRMorg) at the AU Headquarters this morning. http://newsfeed.facilit8.network/TR23WR #Africa #AUC #AfricanUnion #PeerReview #Leadership

Back to the roots: reimagining scientific evaluation of research without peer review

https://microblogging.infodocs.eu/2026/02/18/back-to-the-roots-reimagining-scientific-evaluation-of-research-without-peer-review/

#MalikSallam #PeerReview #PublishingStandards #ResearchEvaluation #ResearchIntegrity #ScientificCommunication

Peer Review at the Crossroads

https://microblogging.infodocs.eu/2026/02/18/peer-review-at-the-crossroads/

#DmitryKochetkov #PeerReview #ScientificCommunication

The paper itself went through 3 rounds of open peer review on MetaROR, with reviews published alongside the article. This transparent process exemplifies the innovations it examines!

View open reviews: https://metaror.org/article/peer-review-at-the-crossroads-3/

#PeerReview #OpenScience #ScholarlyCommunication

#peerReview

Client Info