Post AIAP3OTPDxhYSNWpsm by icedquinn@blob.cat
(DIR) More posts by icedquinn@blob.cat
(DIR) Post #A88bQnppATZSYwujoG by GrassrootsReview@fediscience.org
2021-06-09T15:52:42Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
I had not realized #OpenRepos2021 is also live streaming on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh4SPzHAl-N1dqPPlmHgEzw/videosIn 8 minutes a talk by the Confederation of Open Access Repositories on using #ActivityPub to connect manuscript repositories with peer review systems and journals. ""Notify - The Repository and Services Interoperability Project"The will exchange peer review status (not yet peer review reports). See also:https://www.coar-repositories.org/news-updates/pubfair-version-2-now-available/
(DIR) Post #AIAOTYIFEiV4UJDXzk by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-04-06T08:21:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
"Pubfair is a conceptual model for a modular, distributed open source publishing framework which builds upon the content contained in the network of repositories to enable the dissemination and quality-control of a range of research outputs including publications, data, and more. Pubfair aims to introduce significant innovation into scholarly publishing."https://www.coar-repositories.org/news-updates/pubfair-version-2-now-available/#PubFair #OpenAccess #OpenPublishing
(DIR) Post #AIAOXS7I8vWyUPxDWK by icedquinn@blob.cat
2022-04-06T08:22:38.844236Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey that entire paragraph was painful to try to parse.
(DIR) Post #AIAP3OTPDxhYSNWpsm by icedquinn@blob.cat
2022-04-06T08:28:24.925775Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey i skimmed over the whitepaper (pdf) linked. there are a lot of difficult to parse paragraphs that seem to say very little.it looks like an attempt at a project to wrestle journals out of the picture (delet elsivier :blobcatancap:) so i hope they succeed in that endeavor.
(DIR) Post #AIBZ3N0XrliwbxcIHw by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-04-06T21:54:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@icedquinn> it looks like an attempt at a project to wrestle journals out of the pictureNot the journals themselves so much as the commercial publishers that currently dominate them.
(DIR) Post #AIBaYr6e6wUAtJ30U4 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-04-06T22:11:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@icedquinn Beyond that, he has some radical ideas for strengthening the peer review process itself:"I have started a grassroots journal on homogenization of climate data and only recently started to realize that this will also produce a valuable separation of feedback, publishing and assessment of scientific studies. That by itself can lead to a much more healthy and productive quality control system."https://www.openuphub.eu/community/blog/item/separation-of-review-powers-into-feedback-and-importance-assessment-could-radically-improve-peer-review
(DIR) Post #AIBbutBl9IGbftVeme by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-04-06T22:26:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@icedquinnOops, I just realized my last reply confused two related but separate things 😁
(DIR) Post #AIBxetYWDLrvAgvwW0 by icedquinn@blob.cat
2022-04-07T02:30:52.808343Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey well peer review is a cool meme and all but i'm not sure there is any saving it.there are weird articles like "why most findings are false" and some author complaints about credibility like https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o702 which go at the problem that R&D staff are being deeply compromised by their jobs existing to legitimize the actions of some wealthy capitalists.for example a lab in india reported on believing they found weird DNA sequences indicative of lab manipulation, were peer reviewed, and then were basically bullied post-publication to take the report down. this has been happening in various universities the past couple years--people who are very smart find something that is counter to the approved narrative, it gets peer reviewed, its published, then ?someone? shows up and tells the journals to kill it. among other fraud, like lancet being forced to retract a large study that was supposed to disprove some cheap treatment and it turned out there were conflicts of interest out the ass and also the study was a hit job (nobody could find evidence it was ever done, but it was somehow peer reviewed despite never existing?)i've also seen studies where people published shitposts just to see if peer review would stop them. they didn't. it's more of a narrative gatekeeping process than people actually checking the formulas.it might be better than nothing? i'm not sure.there is a lot of motivated reasoning going on in academia and bizzare attacks (the indians were bullied for "feeding conspiracy theories", rather than "failure to replicate," which would have been the correct approach.)
(DIR) Post #AIBxz4X17GzR0IquMC by icedquinn@blob.cat
2022-04-07T02:34:31.371183Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey it's basically a content rating problem and that's an unsolved issue, i guess.
(DIR) Post #AIC0dAZGIDzxDU9MMS by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-04-07T03:03:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@icedquinnThe examples you give seem to be implementation problems, rather than fundamental flaws in peer review as a concept. You could say it's similar to the problems caused by most email being hosted by GMail; the giant corporate journal publishers are a choke point where corruption of the process can occur. Proposals like PubFair and grassroots journals seem important because they hold the promise of redecentralizing research reporting, improving the effectiveness of peer review.
(DIR) Post #AIC0qw4cyivSJmNxB2 by icedquinn@blob.cat
2022-04-07T03:06:40.201226Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey if the distribution of papers is decentralized but the individual researchers can still be cancelled for having published an unlicensed opinion, the decentralization hasn't done anything.
(DIR) Post #AIDr1Q5dcgEP5A8dcm by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-04-08T00:25:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@icedquinn Sure, which is why those proposals are about ways of decentralizing peer review processes themselves.