Mastodawn

doctorambient Jul 1, 2025

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

Show thread

doctorambient Jul 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 thread

doctorambient

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 thread

doctorambient Jul 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 thread

doctorambient Jul 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 thread

doctorambient Jul 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)