![Excerpt from the linked paper:
As strongly requested by the reviewers, here we cite some references [[35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]] although they are completely irrelevant to the present work.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ip6kjvs3qmhirc52tlza4qs4/bafkreifvj6n5rzuearv346v2x4iq4zo26ilfda2dfxkwmbrvlpuuhfcmoi)
19 143 549
www.nih.gov
NIH centralizes peer review to improve efficiency and strengthen integrity
The proposed approach is expected to save more than $65 million annually.
Bluesky · Hashtag
#PeerReview
166
posts · 30d
80
users
6
posts / day
2.1
posts / user
+ 103% vs last week
#PeerReview is an active hashtag on Bluesky. In the last 30 days, 80 people shared 166 posts with it — around 6 a day. Activity is up 103% versus the previous week, peaking on Aug 6 with 20 posts.
#PeerReview posts per day (last 30 days)
Related tags
Tags most often used together with #PeerReview.
Posts with #PeerReview
Yikes!
Peer review is critical for the integrity of our science, and outside experts are always needed to vet new grant proposals.
By moving this all in-house at NIH, we lose scientific independence & make it easy for the government to determine what research should be funded.
🧪 #PeerReview
9 82 311
Louder for the people at the back...
Do NOT use ChatGPT for peer review.
1) That's not what #peerreview is... A robot is not your peer
2) Stop cheating you slimeball
3) You should never give ChatGPT proprietary or confidential information
Maarten van Smeden @maartenvsmeden.bsky.social
We thank the reviewer for putting our manscript in the public domain using ChatGPT for their peer review without our consent and against journal policy, and for wasting our time reacting on comments that have apparently been written nor checked by the reviewer
4 50 175
🦋 A starter pack of scholarly organizations supporting #research and #science 🔬🧪🧬 🧫 🔭
#AcademicSky #Academia #AcademicChatter #Academics #AcademicWriting #AcademicPublishing #ScienceWriting #SciWri #SciencePublishing #PeerReview #SciComm #ScholComm #SciSky #MedSky #BlueSky #OpenScience #PhDSky #PhD
Scholarly Organizations
Starter pack by Eloquenti 🧪✍️📚
A starter pack of scholarly organizations supporting research and science. Suggestions for additions are welcome!
14 45 163
Single-blind #peerreview leads to more positive outcomes if you are:
- male
- White
- in the US or North America
- well-published or known in your field
- affiliated with a prestigious institution
Can we please make double-blind the gold standard now?
🧪 #academicsky #SciPub
link.springer.com
Impact of author characteristics on outcomes of single- versus double-blind peer review: a systematic review of comparative studies in scientific abstracts and publications - Scientometrics
The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the role of double-blind (DB) peer review on bias against authors when compared to single-blind (SB) peer review in scientific publications. Using…
8 39 132
And so it begins — NIH is planning to terminate active grants that no longer meet the agency's "priorities".
Grants that were already approved for funding through peer review.
The pursuit of knowledge should be apolitical, inclusive, and forward-thinking.
🧪 #PeerReview #DefendResearch
www.nature.com
Exclusive: NIH to terminate hundreds of active research grants
Studies that touch on LGBT+ health, gender identity and DEI in the biomedical workforce could be terminated, according to documents obtained by Nature.
5 68 125
The biggest publishers pulled profit margins in 2023 that rival Big Tech.
And they still charge you to publish and your library to read.
When are we going to start seriously thinking of alternatives to reform #PeerReview?
🧪 #SciPub #AcademicPublishing
Erin J. Wamsley 🧠📈😴 @wamsleylab.bsky.social
Where is the money going? In the case of for-profit publishers it's very clear: Your open access fees fund corporate profit margins. Profit margins for large academic publishers can far exceed those of household names like Amazon and Apple. chart source: bit.ly/4leULKi #scipub #academicsky
5 24 66
I glimpse the third voice at 02:28. The images say that the tasks have been completed, while the echoed narration says that danger is still present. What emerges between them is not simple success, but a body moving forward before the voice feels safe.
#peerreview
0 0 0
I wanted slightly less of the similar hesitation from 00:50–02:28, or one short silence inside that section. The repeated indecision is already clear, so removing one beat might make the remaining actions feel more deliberate.
#peerreview
0 0 0
The project depends on the shift at 02:28. The actions finally change from avoiding to doing, but the voice does not relax with them. This moment breaks the earlier cycle without giving the viewer a complete emotional resolution.
#peerreview
0 0 0
The narration makes the images feel less ordinary. The dog, car, and tree begin to look like possible dangers. The images also make the narration feel less like one emergency and more like fear continuing through everyday actions.
#peerreview
0 0 0
At 00:00, avoiding the dog makes a simple encounter feel like escape. At 00:50, opening and closing the car door turns getting in into a decision under pressure. At 01:41, pacing near the tree extends that hesitation into the whole body.
#peerreview
0 0 0
The PRC Alliance exists to standardize, promote Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) #PeerReview workflows across platforms. The model still lacks empirical evidence, best practice guidance
scholarlykitchen.ssp...
The Scholarly Kitchen
@coar-repositories.bsky.social
ASAPbio
scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org
Guest Post - Do we need (r)evolution in peer review? - The Scholarly Kitchen
Whether peer review needs revolution or evolution may be the wrong question. The more pressing one is whether the academic community is prepared to let scientific ideas be published, contested, and refined in public, rather than behind closed doors.
0 0 1
#peerreview
I find myself wanting to see more about the video. Possibly more hand movements just to really convey emotion, or just moments of stillness, maybe as if one's reflecting. I wanted less volume around 2:37, where one voice was louder than the background voices which made it hard to hear.
0 0 0
2:19, the vibe completely shifts. The playful background music is gone, and the vibe becomes more serious. There's silence in between, and it's going back on what was said earlier. It's going deeper into it and forces us to revisit it.
#peerreview
0 0 0
#peerreview
3:35, when she makes the mistake of her word choice, thats how the interview ends. It seems as if that was the ending of the interview as a result. 1:14 The speak about the producer, with the script in her hand brings it together and makes the scene feel realistic.
0 0 0
#peerreview
The narration fits with the images, I'd say. It's two people on a panel, supported by an audience. It makes sense, and seeing the two together shows how they fit. 2:12 says "laughs nervously" and then we see the throat of someone almost lumping, making it seem as if they are stressed
1 0 0
#peerreview
I think the subject of this project is about an interview. A person is getting interviewed by someone, but we don't see their faces 0:40. It sort of gives me the vibe of a show, but also a script. 2:10. In addition, emotion is conveyed through words, not the visual 1:15
0 0 0
#peerreview
I see the third voice when the narrator says, “wait, nobody is standing in front of the mirror,” and the screen suddenly turns white. The visuals are gone, we are in the unfamiliar. Neither track could create that uncertainty as strongly alone. Consider extending silence & white
0 0 0
Posts are pulled live from Bluesky and cached briefly. Posts with content labels are hidden.