sigmoid.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A social space for people researching, working with, or just interested in AI!

Server stats:

586
active users

#reviewer

0 posts0 participants0 posts today

The best reviewer comments for the morning:

"Overall, this is a very solid manuscript..."

"The paragraph is somewhat mysterious to me."

Also after a positive review, reviewer #2 (no surprises here) suggests to make additional experiments with bacteria. The whole study is about yeast transcription machinery, so this is indeed an interesting addition...

Dear #reviewer,

Complaining that I don't cite 2 (or more!) papers that, coincidentally 😉, are authored by you is, 99% of the time, blatant (and stupid) self-promotion. And if one is an #arxiv paper from this year, well, that's just ludicrous.

I wish reviewing systems include some sanity checks / alarm triggers 🚨 that force #PCChairs to double-check this unethical behaviours.

(another pet peeve of mine when it comes to reviews is New Ideas tracks rejecting papers because of insufficient validation. Honestly, I think every #conference should include a #track for real #new #ideas where any type of validation is explicitly #forbidden as argument).

Looking forward to next week's session at the Paul Meehl Graduate School on Scientific Criticism and #PeerReview.

One of the topics for discussion is what you can ask for as a #reviewer. My default response these days:
"Thank you for the invitation to review the manuscript you’ve received for possible publication in your journal. I will consider your request only if the data and code that produce the results reported are available in a publicly accessible repository...

𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫 - 𝐂𝐄 𝐒𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐥

It’s an honor to contribute to the academic and research community in such a meaningful way. I’m excited to be associated with esteemed platforms like IFERP, ABCD Index, EAI, IJSR, IJIRT, ACSE, and CSE.

Scientists who review manuscripts for journals, question for you! Journal B invites a reviewer who has already recommended rejection when the manuscript was being considered by Journal A. In terms of the ethical thing to do when this #reviewer is invited to review the same #manuscript for Journal B.....

😤😤 1yr ago I was invited to participate as #external #expert #reviewer 🕵️ in a selection process in a #Swedish #university.

I provided my evaluation in time beginning of January. But after countless forms and emails, I'm still waiting for the 💰.

We often see complaints of #researchers declining to help in #peerreview processes. But making it easier to participate would encourage that. I've spent more time with the chasing, forms and emails that what it took me to write the #evaluation 📋

Got to review a paper that was actually interesting, well written and with reasonable conclusions that didn't wildly overshoot what the data suggests. Feels good... But also bad that this is kind of an outlier in the papers that I reviewed recently.

Maybe it's just that I'm low on the food chain and only get the papers that no one else wants to review. Anyway, glad to have one where I opined a lot and didn't groan in frustration.