Is #F1000Research using #Eliza to reply to its emails in its open-peer-review #F1000 system?

2026-01-01 my email:

> Please find a *human* who can read this email and fix your faulty editorial pipeline. > Please see the full timeline of this editorial process: https://codeberg.org/boud/open_science_meta/src/branch/main/open_peer_review/F1000_git_report_CCBYSA

2026-01-08 F1000Research email:

> Thank you for mailing us. Could you please elaborate your sent email "Please
> find a *human* who can read this email and fix your faulty editorial pipeline."

#ElizaLives !

Does #OpenPeerReview (here #F1000Research ) give editors the right to euphemise reviews? See [1] + my submitted review [2].

The editor wants to *completely remove* these 2 sentences:

"This paper is not a research paper in physics/astronomy/cosmology. I will not review further revisions of this submitted text."

I completely fail to see how the editor can justify this removal (+ I disagree with the other changes).

@academicchatter

[1] https://f1000research.com/articles/11-344/v3

[2] https://codeberg.org/boud/open_science_meta/src/branch/main/open_peer_review/F1000_git_report_CCBYSA

F1000Research not only publishes the reviews, their "peer review tips" page also lists a bunch of peer review examples, showing how and why they were useful.

By the time you are asked to write your first review, you probably have been on the receiving end of at least a few - but this is just a small sample in a rather random process. Having such a curated selection is immensely helpful!

https://f1000research.com/for-referees/peer-reviewing-tips/examples

#F1000Research

I'm pleased to announce that our work on the #FluxFramework operator is published in #F1000Research! This is an example of converged computing and was a joy to collaborate with Aldo Culquicondor, Antonio Ojea (Google) and Daniel Milroy (my team).

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.147989.1.

It was important to me to share the design thinking underlying this work, and hopes for the future for our communities. I hope to do (and inspire others to do) work like this more often.

My latest article on #Preprints just published #F1000Research

The rise of preprints in Earth Sciences
https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.133612.2

Nice overview on #Reproducibility by #F1000Research

https://f1000.com/resources-for-researchers/open-research/reproducibility/#formstack

Hope it inspires many of their authors and reviewers!

Don't want to give T&F your email? Download the PDF from https://f1000.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/F1000-058-%E2%80%93-Reproducibility-Guide_v1.pdf

It is a bit short on the steps that publishers and journals could take though. If you are an editor with F1000, take a look at http://cdchck.science/

#ReproducibleResearch #OpenScience #CODECHECK

#F1000Research aimed at #OpenPeerReview but is utterly failing. Sending a reminder just one week after a first request for a review (on version 2 of a text), and then saying nothing - effectively refusing to publish the review - for *six months* despite two reminders defeats the whole idea of open peer review.

#Qeios seems to be doing the opposite - after publishing a review immediately, it clarifies by email that it's a *preprint* server.

@academicchatter

[1] https://codeberg.org/boud/open_science_meta/src/branch/main/open_peer_review/F1000_git_report_CCBYSA