Translate Science is launching a PREreview Club! We hope that will create opportunities for us to get to know more of you from our Mastodon community. Learn more in the blog post and sign up to stay informed about upcoming events:

https://transci.hypotheses.org/220061

https://nextcloud.translatescience.org/apps/forms/s/dqJYTY6HLYnKk6pDk6dpBi8g

#preprints #openScience #peerReview

Follow the outputs of the PREreview + Continuous Science Foundation Modular Peer Review Working Group in real time 🙌

Session 2 was all about identifying reviewable components from multiple stages of research, and associating them with different signals or evaluation functions.

⏩ Now, participants have selected five working sub-groups for deeper exploration through June. Stay tuned as ideas, insights, and approaches take shape.

https://articles.continuousfoundation.org/articles/modular-peer-review/session-2

#OpenScience #ModularScience #PeerReview

Kimon Fountoulakis (@kfountou)

논문 저자들이 리뷰어가 AI를 사용했는지 탐지하기 위해 논문 본문에 숨은 지시문(hidden instructions)을 넣는 사례를 관찰했다는 내용입니다. 이러한 지시문은 AI가 특정 문장을 반드시 포함하도록 유도해 AI 사용을 밝히게 하려는 의도이며, 때로는 그 문장이 인간에게도 타당한 문장인 경우가 있어 문제와 모호성을 동시에 제기합니다.

https://x.com/kfountou/status/2033366744358600883

#ai #peerreview #aidetection #research #ethics

This #PeerReview came back

Manuscript c4,000 words
My 2nd Review c3,500 words
and c600 word #Rstats simulation code to illustrate the main point.
6hrs

Paper remains in a key area of my methodological work, but I still think that the applied methods do not deliver the results the author team aims for. And limited responses to that from the team in the revisions.

https://mastodon.social/@jrboehnke/115684749274397350

"While economists pride themselves on the robustness of their seminars, what actually matters is publication in just five journals. The editors have immense power. Peer review is closed and anonymous. Virtually nothing is ever retracted. Post-publication peer review is minimal. Instead, my experience suggests that there is a culture of not publicly criticizing anything that has been published. If you do, you are viewed as too aggressive, possibly due to some kind of personality defect. Meanwhile, the original authors can use their right to reply for deflection and ad hominem attacks. The fear of upsetting one’s superiors is palpable.

The machines will perhaps bring about some changes. They are massively useful for replication. Without asking a robot to explain it to me repeatedly as if I were a five-year-old, I never would have understood the SCM or Borusyak et al.’s critique of Autor et al.; I never would have done all the coding my replications required; I never would have been able to search for errors in German-language source materials. The cost of doing replication studies has dropped dramatically, even if the institutions and the culture of economics are still hostile to them. Perhaps the system will catch up.

Ultimately, however, human experts are still needed to determine the truth. "

https://thepoorrichworld.substack.com/p/reflections-on-my-adventures-in-replication

#Economics #SocialSciences #Replication #PeerReview #AcademicPublishing

Gaming the peer review system: Evidence for a review mill in medicine highlights the need to ensure reviewer integrity

https://microblogging.infodocs.eu/2026/03/12/gaming-the-peer-review-system-evidence-for-a-review-mill-in-medicine-highlights-the-need-to-ensure-reviewer-integrity/

#BiomedicalResearch #DorothyVMBishop #MngelesOviedoGarca #PeerReview #RenAquarius #ResearchEthics #ReviewMills #ScientificCommunication