There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

fgusmao , to philosophy
@fgusmao@mastodon.social avatar
furqanshah , to academicsunite
@furqanshah@mstdn.science avatar

What do we want? Open science + transparent peer review!

When do we want it? Now!

Yet, reviewers will hide behind the cloak of anonymity. As an editor, there is little to be done about such behaviour. 😔

🧪

@academicchatter @academicsunite @ScienceCommunicator @openscience

jjsylvia , to academicsunite
@jjsylvia@mastodon.social avatar

Anyone interested in a $250 stipend for peer reviewing an OER textbook, "Intro to Communication and Media Studies"? It's adapted from several sources and has some original contributions by both me and my students. Due to a federal grant requirement, this is only open to those living in the U.S. I need three reviewers! Happy to answer any questions.
@academicchatter @academicsunite

PaquitoBernard , to academicchatter
@PaquitoBernard@masto.ai avatar

@PLOS

You are not serious. I received this email (12 days after the expected deadline).

It was the 2nd assessment of this manuscript.

@academicchatter

bibliolater , to philosophy
@bibliolater@qoto.org avatar

"This Element examines some of their concerns. It uses evidence that critics of peer review sometimes cite to show its failures, as well as empirical literature on the reception of bullshit, to advance positive claims about how the assessment of scholarly work is appropriately influenced by features of the context in which it appears: for example, by readers' knowledge of authorship or of publication venue."

Levy N. Philosophy, Bullshit, and Peer Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009256315 @philosophy

kkormas , to academicsunite
@kkormas@mstdn.science avatar
kkormas , to phdstudents
@kkormas@mstdn.science avatar
kkormas , to phdstudents
@kkormas@mstdn.science avatar
hosmic , (edited ) to academicchatter
@hosmic@fediscience.org avatar
kkormas , to academicchatter
@kkormas@mstdn.science avatar
mimarek , to academicchatter
@mimarek@universeodon.com avatar

I did a scholarly peer-review of a manuscript this morning that was a delight to review.

Yes, I am asking for a few changes, but is it already one of the best manuscripts I have reviewed this year.

@academicchatter

wrigleyfield , to academicchatter
@wrigleyfield@fediscience.org avatar

Weird professional norms question re social science

A great reviewer objected to a measure I used by giving a long summary of problems with historical newspapers as sources in the era I discuss. The reviewer is correct, & as a result, I'm moving that set of results to an appendix & contextualizing them with a summary of the issues

The reviewer didn't point me to sources & I've only found them for some of the specific points. I can't just quote the review, can I?!

@academicchatter

kkormas , to academicchatter
@kkormas@mstdn.science avatar

It breaks my heart thinking about all the who were ready to start their new or in foreign countries and now they have to give up because they cannot travel from many more countries other than and

fediverse
@phdlife @PhD_Genie @phdstudents
@academicchatter

kkormas , to academicchatter
@kkormas@mstdn.science avatar

Have you ever been to "shows of technological muscle"??? Awesome editorial!

Don't show us your instrument park: Give us your students/give us to your students!

https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.14326

@phdlife @PhD_Genie @phdstudents
@academicchatter

paulralph , to academicchatter
@paulralph@mastodon.acm.org avatar

Journals: Why won't anyone accept our invitations?!?!

Also journals: please spend 30 mins updating your reviewer profile, research interests, conflicts, password, contact details and availability before writing your review. Oh, and check out our terms of service! You'll love this bit about our right to use your review text to train AI models.

@academicchatter

kkormas , to academicchatter
@kkormas@mstdn.science avatar

Identify trusted publishers for your
Through a range of tools and practical resources, this international, cross-sector initiative aims to educate , promote and build trust in credible research & publications.

https://thinkchecksubmit.org

@peerreviewed @phdlife @PhD_Genie @phdstudents
@academicchatter @IMPACTT @openscience @MicrobioJC @peerjlife

gpollara , to academicchatter
@gpollara@med-mastodon.com avatar

An interesting Letter to the Editor in CMI. It actually makes 2 separate but related points: 🧵

  1. States the benefits of authors re-using peer review performed by other journals, even in the case of paper rejects. It points out the importance of honesty by the authors (though presumably journals can talk to each and also share that information).
    @academicchatter (1/2)
    https://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198-743X(23)00364-6/fulltext?dgcid=raven_jbs_aip_email
gpollara OP ,
@gpollara@med-mastodon.com avatar

The other point is a more generic one: 🧵

  1. that universities should begin to take into account the amount of peer review that academics do as part of their performance evaluation / assessment for promotion, etc...
    @academicchatter (2/2)
    https://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198-743X(23)00364-6/fulltext?dgcid=raven_jbs_aip_email
kkormas , to academicchatter
@kkormas@mstdn.science avatar

Join the of ’s International Programs Launch Event, as we introduce our new English-speaking programs.

War Museum | Rizari 2-4, Athens, GR | 5 Oct. 2023 | 9:30 - 14:00

For more information & to register: https://ips.uth.gr/index.php/promoting-the-universitys-international-programs

@phdlife @PhD_Genie @phdstudents
@academicchatter @open_e_resources

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines