doctorambient

Ugh. Peer review again.

Nature is announcing that all of their peer review conversations are going to be published alongside of the papers. Apparently they've been doing this for some of their journals for a while now, but this is becoming their policy across the board. The link gives their reasoning and some details.

(1/?)

(PS: Does anyone know of a Mastodon thread editor, yet? If so, hit me up!)

#science #peerreview #scicomm #ScienceAndPolicy

@OpenSciPlatform https://mastodon.social/@OpenSciPlatform/114778063259642788

Jul 1, 2025 at 3:15pmMoshidon
Show threaddoctorambientJul 1, 2025

I would like to believe that making the review reports public would increase trust in science. But I don't think it will.

When I talk to people who are anti-science, it's clear that they are just looking for reasons to reject what they don't like. Publishing peer review reports like this will provide them with a new tool for this.

Scientists always seem to make the false assumption that a stronger argument will beat a weaker argument. In public discourse that's not true.

(2/?)

Show threaddoctorambientJul 1, 2025

Please don't misunderstand me: I'm not saying that this is something we shouldn't do. I think it's something we have to do.

But I think the people who do #sciencecommunication need to prepare themselves for a new onslaught of weaponized stupidity.

The link above mentions how science was done more publicly during COVID. I'm sure the editors meant something different, but the entire US scientific community is being destroyed right now because of what happened then.

(3/?)

#scicomms #scicom

Show threaddoctorambientJul 1, 2025

We need to understand that going forward, if this sort of policy becomes common across journals, every edge case, every minor disagreement over a subtlety of a statistical technique, every misunderstanding that a reviewer *later reverses their opinion on* will now be part of what we have to deal with in the public discussion of science.

A discussion where the loudest voices on the anti-science side are often disingenuous from the start.

(4/?)

#AntiScienceIdeology #antiscience

Show threaddoctorambientJul 1, 2025

But like I mentioned above, I'm not sure we have a choice.

It is part of the nature of science to be "public." And while philosophers disagree sometimes about exactly what that means, as a supporter of the open science movement I kind of have to agree this is the right choice.

I can just see what's about to happen and it terrifies me. Prepare for > 40% cuts to NIH going forward if this happens.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/nih-scientists-speak-out-over-estimated-12-billion-trump-funding-cuts-2025-06-09/

(5/?)

#nihcuts

Show threaddoctorambientJul 1, 2025

Honestly, I've never written a review that I would object to having published.

However, if we're going to publish reviews, I think we have to publish the names of the reviewers. If the reviews are part of the record, the reviewers have to take responsibility for their words.

Some journals publish the names of the reviewers at the end of the review process. I think this is a fair compromise between completely anonymous reviewers and the need for public records.

We'll see how it goes.

(6/6)

Show threadRob 🏳️‍🌈 Rartsy HumanistJul 1, 2025

@doctorambient I'm afraid I agree with your pessimistic take & you're so right that many people simply accept what they like & reject what they dislike. As for others who succumb to weak arguments, I think what happens is that folks are so busy/oppressed/stressed that they favor the *simplest* argument (that's usually false propaganda). To improve society people need time to think.

I know nothing about this thread composer, just passing along what I saw shared last week: https://splinter.hastily.cc/

Splinter - Mastodon Thread Splitter

Show threaddoctorambientJul 1, 2025

@RMiddleton thanks for the link!

I definitely agree with your assessment. A lot of the people who accept weak arguments do so because they are, as you say, too overwhelmed with other stuff to do their own, well, analysis isn't quite the right word. But, yeah.

The real problem are the disingenuous actors in this "debate" who have time and resources to spend all day finding ways to attack good arguments with what amounts to cheap rhetorical tricks.

Unfortunately, those tricks work. smh

Show threadRob 🏳️‍🌈 Rartsy HumanistJul 1, 2025

@doctorambient FYI: I tried putting a blog post with links into https://splinter.hastily.cc & I spent time tweaking the sentence breaks & stuff... linked it to my Mastodon account... ended up with a 10 post thread set to display the first post with 9 unlisted follow-ups;
pressed the Post to Mastodon button &
IT FAILED.

So... I'd say, No, there is not a reliable thread composer yet.

Splinter - Mastodon Thread Splitter

Show threaddoctorambientJul 1, 2025
@RMiddleton Thanks for the update! I'll let you know if I find one that works.