Shuja JamalNov 10, 2022
Conrad Hackett 
In a classic experiment, 12 articles were resubmitted to the same journals in which they had already been published. Three were recognized as resubmissions. Eight of the nine articles reviewed again were rejected, often due to "serious methodological flaws."
#academicmastodon #publishing
Nov 10, 2022 at 1:50amWeb
Show threadCody Sharpe, PhDNov 10, 2022
@conradhackett What an absolute riot, I should dig this up.
Show threadJuli NagelNov 10, 2022
@conradhackett Are you aware of similar approaches within the last 10, 20 years? I'd assume spotting resubmissions has become easier nowadays.
Show threadCarlos BarthNov 10, 2022
@juli_nagel @conradhackett I was about to ask the same. Resubmission is indeed easier to spot nowadays with anti-plagiarism systems. However, it won't help if they check only after the peer review, which is not unlikely. If you become aware of similar recent work, would you be kind to share?
Show threadJuli NagelNov 10, 2022
@carloshb @conradhackett I will keep an eye out. To me, the fact they didn't spot resubmissions isn't that interesting (that's a simple automated check today), but rather that reviewer feedback differs so drastically. Of course it's not that surprising that peer review is ... suboptimal, but it would still be cool to see recent data on this topic.
Show threadCarlos BarthNov 10, 2022
@juli_nagel @conradhackett thanks! that's what's striking for me too. Sounds like a nice way to check how effective peer-review actually is.
Show threadConrad Hackett Nov 10, 2022
@juli_nagel Not off hand but my guess is that others must have tried this again.
Show thread@dickretiredNov 10, 2022

@conradhackett

Do you think the new ELife policy will produce better results?

Show threadConrad Hackett Nov 10, 2022
@dickretired I don’t know about that. What do you think?
Show thread@dickretiredNov 10, 2022
@conradhackett
I worry that it is up to the reader to detect rubbish and everyone is so busy that they may not have the time to evaluate papers themselves.
Show threadHarley EadesNov 12, 2022
@dickretired @conradhackett I think that’s usually the problem, and usually the way misinformation about studies are propagated even by the media.
Show threadLisa SchiffNov 13, 2022
@dickretired @conradhackett I share those concerns. Peer review definitely has serious problems and limitations, but I don't think this really addresses those and it's introducing others.
Show threadVelteropⓐⓊ🪂🇪🇺🇳🇱🇬🇧🇩🇪Nov 12, 2022
@conradhackett It appears the article was re-published in 2010 by Cambridge University Press. Not sure what the reasons were. I can't find their motivation to re-publish.
Show threadBenAvelingNov 19, 2022
@villavelius 2010 publication was an online publication. So that's probably the motivation.
Show threadbacigalupeNov 19, 2022
@conradhackett oh my