Post AIAPBjTH2RmvtgRWxE by GrassrootsReview@fediscience.org
(DIR) More posts by GrassrootsReview@fediscience.org
(DIR) Post #AIAPBhYABIVjwGiPIW by GrassrootsReview@fediscience.org
2021-03-29T12:46:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
From Reddit."Peer Review Week 2020: Insights into Building Trust in Peer Review". Authored by people from Asian Council of Science Editors and GlaxoSmithKline. An overview of the event and the "interesting" suggestion to have journals control preprinting. http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/ansinet/pjbs/2020/1496-1499.pdf https://www.reddit.com/r/GrassrootsJournals/comments/mfo0r7/peer_review_week_2020_insights_into_building/?utm_source=ifttt
(DIR) Post #AIAPBiZcNNGj74P5Ci by yaaps@banana.dog
2021-03-29T14:05:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GrassrootsReview If I understand correctly... There's a recognized problem with confidence in the peer review process. The solution to this crises of confidence does not involve introspection about any real or perceived shortcomings of the peer review process, itself, but rather to bring preprints of pending articles under control of the journalsYes. "Interesting"Forgive my cynicism, but this looks like an attempt by capital to leverage public outage against anti-Asian violence to make preprints unavailable to the public
(DIR) Post #AIAPBjTH2RmvtgRWxE by GrassrootsReview@fediscience.org
2021-03-29T14:34:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yaaps Yes, preprints are a threat to the monopoly profits of the scientific publishing industry.Violence against Asians is mainly an American thing, due to Trump's rhetoric, would be my impression. The article was written by people who live in Asia, I had not noticed them using violence as an argument. I am sure, others would be happy to do so.Preprints are supposed to be not reviewed. That is the innovation. That already makes it interesting to include them in a piece on peer review. 1/2
(DIR) Post #AIAPBk7KdVpZtvBWOO by yaaps@banana.dog
2021-03-29T19:34:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GrassrootsReview Of course there's nuanceAnti-Asian racism in America refers mostly to racism against people of East and Southeast Asian ancestry. It goes back to the 1850s and the violence is usually less visible than other hate crimes. (It's racism adjacent to anti-misogyny rather than anti-Blackness because the anti-Chinese Jim Crow laws in western states forced Chinese and other Asian immigrants into service industries that filled economic roles traditionally served by women)So there can be a legitimate point to be made about journalists misusing preprints, but the reasons that the report is promoted institutionally is because it's useful for those who monetize medical and scientific knowledge, and because liberals, who would normally defend availability of information, are silenced by the use of "Asian" in the source, even though people from that part of Asia visiting the US would experience racism differently than what's currently in the newsIf this was implemented as suggested, how would it affect your project, SciHub, and the ability of scientists to share preprints of their own work?
(DIR) Post #AIAPBkeIewCbYAbqmO by GrassrootsReview@fediscience.org
2021-03-31T14:52:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yaaps The way you use "liberal" here is again an American construct.The idea that people would not dare to disagree with non-white people is an American trope spread by the elite that opposite to the truth. In actual fact it is the people in power that people are hesitant about attacking.As far as I can judge centralizing preprints would make it more urgent to take down the publishers, but not affect post-publication review, nor would it affect SciHub, which is about published papers.
(DIR) Post #AIAPBlGwLH6vU0gi0W by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-04-06T08:29:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GrassrootsReview> The way you use "liberal" here is again an American construct.Agreed. What's being described here is the political face of neoliberalism, the bit that attempts to distract left-leaning people from the continuing rollout of its economic aspect. Which, as you say, includes giving corporations more control of academic literature, among other things traditionally seen as public goods.@yaaps
(DIR) Post #AIAPBlGwLH6vU0gi0X by GrassrootsReview@fediscience.org
2021-03-29T14:37:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yaaps To be fair, some review is done before preprints are published.In medical repositories they check to ensure the information in them, if wrongly seen as reliable scientific information, would not lead to public health problems. And the Lancet recently retracted a preprint, which I did not know was possible. So unfortunately we can no longer talk about preprints in medicine as not being reviewed. That would have made it easier to tell journalists to be careful writing about them. 2/2