Joseph Gedeon : #RFK Jr threatens ban on federal scientists publishing in top journals: US health secretary calls leading medical journals such as Lancet ‘corrupt’ and pushes to create state-run alternatives

Guess what? There already government-funded health journals (e.g., EHP and JHP), but RFK or #Musk defunded them so that they can no longer do peer reviews or accept new submissions.

#medicine #science #hhs #autocracy #doge #peerreview #healthcare
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/28/rfk-jr-medical-journals

So, #PeerReview vong Manuskript ist abgeschickt; jetzt noch 1 Käffken und dann sindwa auch gleich inna Uni beim #CIDAS-Beirat.

#ICE73 noch „pünktlich“ #traintröt

Enjoying 90 mins away from the coalface with @simonxix @scrivenersmith @copim and others, to hear more about new frontiers in (scholarly) publishing, e.g. harnessing markdown, deploying Juncture, peer review via GitHub, Linked Open Data, WikiData, and other animals... Juicy! Noice!

https://copim.pubpub.org/pub/markdown-dive-deep/release/3?readingCollection=ace58019

Manchmal erzwingen Gutachter, dass Autoren deren eigene Arbeiten in ihrem Manuskript zitieren – sonst würden sie es nicht zur Veröffentlichung empfehlen. Einziger Zweck: das eigene Zitationskonto aufblasen … — Heute in unserer "Freitags-Kolumne": https://www.laborjournal.de/editorials/3252.php #PeerReview

Honored to receive an Award of Appreciation from the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine for my contribution to the evaluation of research projects. Proud to stand with Ukrainian science.
#UkraineScience #ResearchEvaluation #ScienceForUkraine #OpenScience #PeerReview #DistributedPeerReview

I wonder what people are using nowadays to keep track or their review activities.

I used Publons before it was bought and killed but I have no idea what exists nowadays... any recommendations?
Also accepting recommendations against using specific tools or arguments against doing it altogether

@academicchatter

Reimagining peer review: new #spotLights episode discussing the Fast & Fair peer review initiative launched by @BiologyOpen

Dan, Alejandra & Jonathan discuss early insights, now published as a #bioRxiv #preprint, and how you can get involved.

Listen below
https://youtu.be/mM6mZIubZaw

Und wieder ein #PeerReview, in dem unpassende Anforderungen gestellt werden. Warum muss man in den #Humanities *immer noch* durchdiskutieren, welche (konsistente) Form des #gendern man nutzt?

Meine Güte geht mir dieses Publikationsrumeiern mittlerweile auf den Senkel.

"The pilot employs state-of-the-art methodologies in the responsible deployment of LLM technology, including:

Multi-step reasoning processes at inference time
Web search capabilities as tools in the reasoning chain
Rigorous checks for proper data source attribution
Comprehensive monitoring and evaluation of LLM contributions
"

#AAAI Launches AI-Powered #PeerReview Assessment System
https://aaai.org/aaai-launches-ai-powered-peer-review-assessment-system/

"Peer Review at the Crossroads" (v2) is out!
Improved via @MetaROR peer review.
Key adjustments:
Standardized terminology
Restructured sections for clearer logic
Explicitly flagged personal perspectives + balanced claims with limitations
Expanded discussion on transparency and equity
Read the full paper here https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/b2ra3
#PeerReview #PublishReviewCurate #ScholarlyPublishing #ScholarlyCommunication #OpenReports #OpenIdentities #RegisteredReports #ModularPublishing

NEW Preprint: Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Scholarly Peer Review: A Framework for Enhancing Efficiency and Quality https://osf.io/preprints/osf/s764u_v1 #ai #scholcomm #peerreview

Vote for the theme for this year's Peer Review Week by the end of May:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScoWNTs5FGWypQklahSnMyW4T4hsDRz65v9xyb0zyZDeSYj1A/viewform

Choose from:
* Future Proofing Peer Review for Tomorrow’s Research
* Rethinking Peer Review in the AI Era
* Cultivating Growth and Mentorship in Peer Review
* Communication & Collaboration in Peer Review

**How to make a splash in AI economics: fake your data**

David Gerard

“_The big money in AI wants stuff it can call “science” to back up its claims of AI magic right now, and it doesn’t want to wait around for the peer review process._”

https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/05/17/how-to-make-a-splash-in-ai-economics-fake-your-data/.

#AI #ArtificialIntelligence #Technology #Tech #Research #Academia #PeerReview @ai

#Academic #journals were once a source of scholarly #information dissemination and #knowledge sharing. Now they're just echo-chamber gatekeepers, many for-profit. A #free #internet #website: same thing (I use Obsidian, WordPress too)...unless you want someone else to do your thinking for you. #public #peerreview #openscience #openaccess

Pressures and Solutions for Shoestring-Budget Journal Publishers: how do small, non-profit journal publishers maintain editorial quality amid tightening resources, rising competition, & misinformation & AI?

The panel explored how cultural and linguistic factors, particularly in small nation settings, complicate plagiarism detection & editorial consistency. Small communities improve trust but risk bias.

EASE is grateful for the kind invitation by the mayor of Oslo, Anne Lindboe, and the generous hospitality of Oslo city hall. To protect science from disinformation, scientists and science editors must not forget they are citizens at first. The way to safeguard trustworthiness of science and ensuring its rigor and integrity is to engage with citizens and empower their critical thinking skills.

Six months. Two rounds of peer review. Then, a rejection — with no meaningful explanation.

When journals ask authors to thoroughly revise a manuscript and engage constructively with feedback, they carry a responsibility too: to evaluate the revised work fairly & transparently.

What makes this more disappointing is that the journal in question is European Science Editing, published by an organization that advocates for ethical and responsible editorial practices.

Pretty content with myself, today.

I used the one-way street called "single-blind peer review" in the wrong direction and reviewed the reviews in a (prob. pointless) letter to the editor.

You struggle hard to keep to the word-limit of the journal, just to get blamed for having a too short Materials and Results, "concealing" the many weaknesses of one's work. And nobody minds the 30p long Suppl. M&M and 113p long Suppl. R&D