Post #1331545
2026-02-08 11:48 UTC
@UlrikeHahn
> without better discernment things will break *even if* the quality of the additional information is high
This is such an important point! See my recent discussion with @Ooze about the potential of adding a pre-peer-review layer to preprint servers.
More reviewers doesn't improve the review process. Unless there are mechanisms for filtering out low effort or out-of-context reviews, and surfacing the most accurate, detailed and relevant ones (we agree there are ways to do that).
Replies (2)
-
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org 2026-02-08 12:18
@strypey @Ooze FYI…. all potential remedies/solutions welcome! https://write.as/ulrikehahn/is-ai-killing-scientific-reform
-
@olibrendel@scicomm.xyz 2026-02-08 12:22
@UlrikeHahn @Ooze @strypey Yes, if we go for public reviews, valued in the CVs, then such a review should probably include some part where the reviewer presents his understanding of the objectives of the paper and puts the objectives as well as the results into an additional bibliographic context (which could be added to the MS as some kind of editorial), allowing thus the evaluation of the competence of the reviewer, as well as the value of the review #OpenScience #PeerReview #AcademicChatter