Post #2433614
2024-03-29 20:01 UTC
Replies (3)
-
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org 2024-03-29 20:29
@plektix@mathstodon.xyz Peer review is useful indeed and preprints are perfectly compatible with it. The Gates Foundation repository does preprint peer review, BioRxiv has a peer review overlay* (used by eLife) and there are multiple organisations collating preprint reviews (e.g. PreReview, ReviewCommons). I’d love to see separate, non-profit entities for curation (as PreLights does), in depth critical review (PubPeer, but friendlier) and publishing (Rxiv servers). * https://www.science.org/content/article/bid-boost-transparency-biorxiv-begins-posting-peer-reviews-next-preprints
-
@mike@sauropods.win 2024-03-29 20:39
@plektix@mathstodon.xyz @villavelius@mastodon.online @brembs@mastodon.social @Luke_Drury@mastodon.dias.ie @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org "This is interesting. But science can't just all be "preprint and done", can it? As flawed as it is, peer review on some level is needed, no?" I am genuinely not convinced any longer than this is true. I always took it for granted, as we all do. But in my own experience, undergoing peer-review costs me more that it gets me. I'm on the fence.
-
@brembs@mastodon.social 2024-03-29 21:21
@plektix@mathstodon.xyz @mike@sauropods.win @villavelius@mastodon.online @Luke_Drury@mastodon.dias.ie @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org I'd guess nobody who follows the evidence would want to keep the peer-review we currently use: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037/full And paying extra for something we are already paid for also doesn't sound like a good idea: https://bjoern.brembs.net/2023/02/how-about-paying-extra-for-peer-review/