In unserem Frühjahrs-Newsletter „Pack your Data“ stellen wir #MaRDIs neuen Service für Forschende vor: MaPS. Dieser ermöglicht es, Software-Umgebung so zu verpacken, dass Gutachter*innen die Ergebnisse mit nur wenigen Befehlen replizieren können – effizent & praktisch.
Hier lesen: http://t1p.de/0da4d
Here is our new #CallForPapers #CfP for the upcoming Summer Issue No.43 of the Journal for #Deradicalization! Spread the word and send in your ideas! Learn more via journal-derad.com #PCVE #PeerReview #openacess
Well this just makes my #scicomm heart very happy 
it’s about time!!
#OpenAccess #humanities #cambridge #publishing #peerreview
https://humanities.org.au/power-of-the-humanities/public-humanities-fast-tracked-research/
"On improving the sustainability of peer review" - a good editorial from #PLOSBiology https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003127 #peerreview #academicchatter #academicpublishing
Bin mal wieder Schiedsrichter a.k.a. #PeerReviewer für 1 Manuskript.
Über 40 Seiten 
…
… okay, mit drölffachem Zeilenabstand. Vermutlich, damit ich mir Notizen zwischen den Zeilen mache …
Siamo tutti d'accordo: il lavoro non retribuito è sfruttamento. Eppure, nell'ambiente accademico, si ritiene accettabile che la #PeerReview sia gratuita.
Ma cosa succederebbe se le riviste pagassero i reviewer? Due esperimenti suggeriscono che le review sarebbero più veloci e di pari qualità.
Publishers trial paying peer reviewers — what did they find?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00968-6
"For scientists, imagining a world without arXiv is like the rest of us imagining one without public libraries or GPS. But a look at its inner workings reveals that it isn’t a frictionless utopia of open-access knowledge. Over the years, arXiv’s permanence has been threatened by everything from bureaucratic strife to outdated code to even, once, a spy scandal. In the words of Ginsparg, who usually redirects interview requests to an FAQ document—on arXiv, no less—and tried to talk me out of visiting him in person, arXiv is “a child I sent off to college but who keeps coming back to camp out in my living room, behaving badly.”
Ginsparg and I met over the course of several days last spring in Ithaca, New York, home of Cornell University. I’ll admit, I was apprehensive ahead of our time together. Geoffrey West, a former supervisor of Ginsparg’s at Los Alamos National Laboratory, once described him as “quite a character” who is “infamous in the community” for being “quite difficult.” He also said he was “extremely funny” and a “great guy.” In our early email exchanges, Ginsparg told me, upfront, that stories about arXiv never impress him: “So many articles, so few insights,” he wrote."
https://www.wired.com/story/inside-arxiv-most-transformative-code-science/
Liebe Editor*innen, Conference Chairs und akademische Verleger*innen – wenn ihr wissenschaftliche Arbeiten zur doppelblinden anonymen #PeerReview-Begutachtung verschickt, achtet doch bitte darauf, dass die PDF-Dateien keine Metadaten enthalten, aus denen man die Namen oder Zugehörigkeiten der Autor*innen ablesen kann.
Ansonsten weiß man halt, wer das Paper geschrieben hat und die ganze weitere Anoymisierung ist für die Katz.
Vielen Dank an alle.
Update. Michael Szell (@mszll) will no longer review for #RoyalSociety journals, and has shared his review-decline message. Good move.
https://fediscience.org/@mszll@datasci.social/114245973896435127
An interesting review of a trial involving paying people who #PeerReview papers for publication.
".... found that paying for reviews moderately improved both the number of accepted invitations and the speed at which reviews were carried out. Some 53% of researchers accepted the invitation to review when offered payment, compared with 48% of those who received a standard, non-paid offer. "
New #OpenAccess publication in the spotlight:
Intramolecular feedback regulation of the LRRK2 Roc G domain by a LRRK2 kinase-dependent mechanism
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.91083.4
We talked to one of the #authors, Arjan Kortholt from our faculty of #Science and #Engineering, about the article, preprints, open #PeerReview, open access, and #OpenScience in general.
Read more on our Open Science #Blog: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/blog/open-access-publication-in-the-spotlight-intramolecular-feedback-regulation-of-the-lrrk2-roc-g-do
In our spring newsletter, "Pack your Data", we introduce MaRDI’s new service for researchers, MaPS. Easily package your software environment so fellow researchers or referees can replicate it with just a few commands. Explore this and much more here: http://t1p.de/0da4d #OpenScience #PeerReview #ResearchData #MaRDI
Freude! Neue Publikation:
Jan Horstmann, Martin de la Iglesia, Caroline Jansky & Timo Steyer (2025). „Qualität im Diamond Open Access: 10 Jahre Zeitschrift für digitale Geisteswissenschaften.“ O-Bib. Das Offene Bibliotheksjournal 12(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.5282/o-bib/6127
"Peer review is the worst method of safeguarding scientific integrity, except for all those other methods that have been tried from time to time." As Churchill might have said if he'd been a scientist rather than a politician.
From a conversation with a friend: https://theconversation.com/peer-review-is-meant-to-prevent-scientific-misconduct-but-it-has-its-own-problems-248015
There are a lot of flaws in #peerreview as it's generally done now, and people working to improve it. But what's the alternative to the concept itself? We know what general public #commentary on #science looks like, and politicians shoehorning science into their #ideologies, and science for #profit without checks on validity ... they're all awful.
None of them can be completely avoided either, any more than the potent combination of authoritarianism and stupidity which is always trying to infect #democratic forms of #government. (Just to choose a random example.) And in fact there *should* be input into science from outside the field, because it doesn't exist in a vacuum any more than defense or education or business or religion or any other large-scale area of human endeavour.
But if there's a better way to keep science more or less on track, I'll be damned if I know what it is. The only people qualified to judge the work of scientists—not the big-picture priorities, and not the utility of the results, but the nitty-gritty of the work itself—are other people knowledgeable in the same line of work, and I don't see that changing. Same as any other job, really.
Like I said above, there are proposals for addressing peer review's flaws, and I'll be happy to expound on that if anyone likes.
As a PhD student, you will try to publish your work in peer reviewed academic journals. But how does peer review work? What things do you have to do, what can you do, and what should you not do? Here are some meta science insights on peer review in science. https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/peer-review/
I hope this is helpful! Do you miss anything? Let me know.
Revising an academic journal paper, at that stage of needing to cut many hundreds of words to get back under the word count after adding things per reviewer feedback. Being really brutal in places! Also giving a Paddington Bear hard stare at the remaining new footnotes still to be filled in. Or cut! 400 words down, 600 to go ... #Academia #PaddingtonBear #AcademicWriting #Journal #PeerReview
Sakana AI's "AI Scientist-v2" had a paper pass peer-review at a top AI conference workshop! 
This marks a milestone as the first fully AI-generated paper to achieve this. The paper explores challenges in enhancing neural network generalization. Read more here: https://sakana.ai/ai-scientist-first-publication/ #AI #MachineLearning #PeerReview #AIScience 
Peer-Review in der #Rechtswissenschaft bedeutet für mich: ... ?
Mit dem Stichwort „#Feedback“ wollen wir die letzte Umfrage der Interview-Reihe zum #Kurzlehrbuch #Sozialrecht bei #OpenRewi starten.
Was verbindet ihr mit (Peer-)Review-Prozessen in der Rechtswissenschaft?
Welche Feedbackmöglichkeiten nutzt ihr?
Our open review process ensures transparency in academic publishing. Sterre Leufkens (Utrecht University) highlights the impact of Tan Arda Gedik’s work, emphasizing the need for better metrics in language acquisition research. Her assessment is publicly available, reinforcing the value of open and rigorous evaluation.
Read the article: https://doi.org/10.25189/2675-4916.2025.V6.N2.ID785
Die Idee klingt bestechend einfach: Künstliche Intelligenz soll inhaltliche Fehler in wissenschaftlichen Veröffentlichungen finden. Doch ganz so einfach ist es dann doch nicht.
