Brendan Nyhan writes: Wanted to share this open letter. I know preregistration isn’t useful for the style of research you do, but even for consumers of preregistered research like you it’s essential to know if the preregistration was actually disclosed … Continue reading
Valentin Amrhein points to this new policy from a biology journal. Here it is: From next year, we will no longer make accept/reject decisions at the end of the peer-review process; rather, all papers that have been peer-reviewed will be … Continue reading
First person to correctly fill in the blanks above gets a free copy of Bayesian Data Analysis, a free copy of Regression and Other Stories, and a free copy of Stan!
Nothing new here, I just happened to come across this post from a couple years ago and I think it remains relevant: I understand the above quote completely. Life would be so much simpler if my work was just reviewed … Continue reading
The following came in the email last week from Gordon Shotwell: You posted about an earlier pilot trial of calcifidiol, so I wanted to send you this larger study. The randomization is a bit funky and if you were interested … Continue reading
OK, this is weird. Yesterday we reported on an article with questionable statistical analysis published in the British Medical Journal. This one’s different from some other examples we’ve discussed recently (Surgisphere and Stanford) in that the author list of this … Continue reading
OK, I’ve been saying this over the phone to a bunch of journalists during the past month so I might as well share it with all of you . . . 1. The peers . . . The problem with … Continue reading
Someone writes: We’re in the middle of what feels like a drawn out process of revise and resubmit with one of the big journals (though by pre-pandemic standards everything has moved quite quickly), and what’s most frustrating is that the … Continue reading
I understand the above quote completely. Life would be so much simpler if my work was just reviewed by my personal friends and by people whose careers are tied to mine. Sure, they’d point out problems, but they’d do it … Continue reading
From the university webpage: Robert J. Sternberg is Professor of Human Development in the College of Human Ecology at Cornell University. . . . Sternberg is the author of over 1700 refereed publications. . . . How did he compile … Continue reading
Gabriel Power writes: I don’t recall that you addressed this point in your posts on post-publication peer review [for example, here and here — ed.]. Who would be allowed to post reviews of a paper? Anyone? Only researchers? Only experts? … Continue reading
[image of Cantor’s corner] Here’s the “puzzle,” as we say in social science. Scientific research is all about discovery of the unexpected: to do research, you need to be open to new possibilities, to design experiments to force anomalies, and … Continue reading
Jonathan Falk sent me some version of this image in an email with subject line, “If this isn’t the picture for some future blog entry I’ll never forgive you.” This was a credible threat so here’s the post. But I … Continue reading
Andrew Preston writes: I’m the co-founder and CEO of Publons.com. Our mission is to modernise peer review. We’ve developed a way to give researchers formal recognition for their peer review (i.e., evidence that can go on your CV) and have … Continue reading
Rob Bloomfield writes: I [Bloomfield] am a new editor of a new Journal of Financial Reporting, and we’re trying to make some changes to peer review in our field. I’d be very interested to hear your and your readers’ thoughts … Continue reading
Here’s an ironic juxtaposition from Tyler Cowen’s blog. On 28 Apr he discusses a paper with a market system for improving peer review and concludes, “Interesting, but the main problem with the idea is simply that no one cares.” The … Continue reading
Our recent discussion of the problems with peer review reminded me of this amusing/horrifying story from a few years ago, when some researchers noticed a data coding error in a published paper Once it was noticed, the error was obvious: … Continue reading
Disclaimer: This post is not peer reviewed in the traditional sense of being vetted for publication by three people with backgrounds similar to mine. Instead, thousands of commenters, many of whom are not my peers—in the useful sense that, not … Continue reading
In a paper subtitled, “A simulation study of editors, reviewers, and the scientific publication process,” political scientist Justin Esarey writes: Under any system I study, a majority of accepted papers will be evaluated by the average reader as not meeting … Continue reading
I received the following email: