By signing up as a reviewer for Seismica, you’re not just reviewing papers - you’re helping build a more transparent, accessible, and researcher-driven publishing model for earthquake science and social seismology.
Register🔗https://seismica.eu.pythonanywhere.com/
Kimon Fountoulakis (@kfountou)
저자는 논문 채택의 결정 기준 중 하나가 인간의 개입(노력) 정도였을 가능성이 있다고 추정합니다. 만약 해당 기준이 사라지면, 연구자들은 인간 노력보다 아이디어의 흥미로움에 거의 전적으로 집중하게 될 것이라고 전망합니다. 이는 AI 보조 연구가 학술 평가 기준을 바꿀 수 있음을 시사합니다.
@Bayesprof @SebastienBubeck @boazbaraktcs So far, my guess is that one of the decision criteria for accepting a paper was the amount of human effort (even if implicit). If that’s gone, then people will focus almost only on how interesting an idea is.
While the strain on academic #publishing is real, here is a monthly reminder to always respond to invitations for #PeerReview! Ignoring these messages just exacerbates the problem for everyone involved - let's not do that 💪 🔭 🧪
If a journal asks me to do a peer-review for them, which I accept, then it makes a decision before the review deadline, without waiting for my review, and without letting me know that I do not need to do the review.. while I use my spare time to complete the peer-review by the deadline... then I am not going to do any more peer-review for that journal 🤷
(#PLoSOne in this case 🫤)
#AcademicChatter #PeerReview
2. Lack of further results like feature visualization, downstream results and so on.
* Reviewer 1: The paper lacks enough visual experimental figures that clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.
> I don't have pretty pictures to impress you in this paper. Just number and stats over large datasets. Does that mean the science is wrong?
* Reviewer 2: Only the accuracy and calibration of the fusion model itself are evaluated, without verifying its performance improvement for downstream safety-critical tasks, resulting in a lack of practicality validation."
> That is a whole ass new paper you are asking for because this data is not available as far as I know. There is very few dataset of **checks notes** people wearing IMU sensors while being in a situation in which they might hurt themselves and die.
Complained to the AE, was sent back the exact comments from the #reviewers that I demonstrated are incorrect or already done. The AE say they read the reviewers comments again and stand by their judgement, but _did they read our paper that already answers the reviewers comments_? I guess not.
Why be an associate editor when you clearly don’t want to do the job…?
@zimoun
What am I missing?
Who exactly is perfecting my PDF prints? The major journals just make a print out of my.manuscript in the nick of a moment, often with mistakes, figures with pixel and ugly tables.
Got one of these emails again...
WeAreSeismica
sayzard
Dr. Ramesh Glückler
El Duvelle
André Lampe
MalcolmMielle
Georg Krammer
Bjørn Sætrevik
WilliamLMiller