Post #1073436
2026-04-07 06:08 UTC
Of all three reviews of a recent Science Advances submission, mine was the one that was paricularly critical of the methods, with numerous questions about documentation, references, data, sample sizes, etc.
Guess which reviewer was the only one not invited for a second round of reviews and now the paper is accepted?
Point in case why GlamMagz are the main driver of the #replication crisis and not paper mills or AI slop. The latter are just convenient distractors from the actual problem.
Replies (4)
-
@khinsen@scholar.social 2026-04-07 06:20
@brembs I'd say they are more than distractors, as they actively exploit the weaknesses of the ever more failing reviewing system.
-
@paulwalk@mastodon.social 2026-04-07 06:31
@brembs "GlamMagz" is a new one for me 😂
-
@Aschniedermann@fediscience.org 2026-04-07 11:54
@brembs Was there any official reason for not inviting you to the second round of review?
-
@adredish@neuromatch.social 2026-04-07 12:55
@brembs That's interesting as I don't consider Science Advances a GlamourMag. I've always thought of ScienceAdvances as the GlamourMag Science attempting to reach down and scoop up the "higher quality workhorse journal" market. Of course, that means that the GlamourMag mistake (interest/importance [clickbait] over validity/quality) is percolating down into the rest of the scientific literature.