Today's Resist is about an OMB rulemaking to subject science research to politics. This proposed rule would allow political appointees to override peer review in federal grant decisions and penalize applicants based on organizational affiliations.

Please review the comment below and copy/paste at https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/OMB-2026-0034-0001 by July 13.

If you have time, you can also copy and paste your comment into the forms on the websites of your Senators and Representative. Please share with friends https://www.congress.gov/contact-us

Comment on rulemaking:

I am opposed to OMB’s proposed federal financial assistance rule for three reasons. First, political appointees should not replace scientists in reviewing potential grant awards; awards should not “...demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.” Our laws and court cases reflect that we are long past the age of the “spoils system,” that late 19th and early 20th century practice of rewarding political loyalists with government posts and contracts.

Second, independent peer review has been part of scientific grant review since the end of WWII. This rule discounts peer review as a primary measure of merit.

Third, grant applications could be negatively judged based on scientist affiliation with civil rights, environmental or public health organizations. Such memberships have nothing to do with the merit of an application.

#Resist #ResistOfTheDay #Science #PeerReview

Wow, this is a little ... academically aggressive.

That's especially true given that it concerns uncompensated labor. (Maybe that's why the task of finding reviewers "has become increasingly difficult".)

#Academia #Publishing #PeerReview

Researchers, students, and professionals often face lengthy, unclear peer review processes with limited visibility into manuscript progress.

At #JPsyExp, you can track live status updates at any time.

Try it 👇🏼

https://jpsyexp.org/status/
using
jpsyexp-a1b2c3d4

#Psychology #PeerReview #OpenAccess #AcademicPublishing

📬 A new issue of the 2026 PREreview Champions interview series is out!

This week, Akuma Ifeanyichukwu shared his takeaways from the program, and his reflections on the power of #OpenScience & inclusive research practices.

https://content.prereview.org/an-interview-with-prereview-champion-akuma-ifeanyichukwu/

#PeerReview #preprint

From the #SilverChair report on the state of #PeerReview:
https://www.silverchair.com/news/the-numbers-behind-the-noise/

"The global reviewer pool grew 54% between 2018 and 2025. At the same time, the rate at which those reviewers accept invitations has fallen sharply. It now takes editors an average of 4.5 invitations to secure a single review, nearly double the rate from 2018. That inefficiency has a cost. Per 100 invitations sent, editors wait a combined 407 days for reviewers who ultimately say no or say nothing at all."

#ScholComm