“...unprofessional peer reviews are pervasive & ..disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM” https://t.co/DNa3g4AX78 Thanks for highlighting this paper @cbenkwitt. An important finding & 1 more reason not to be a/an (insert expletive here) when you review
Ever felt upset by peer-review comments ? Check out this PeerJ research article by Silbiger and Stubler on the impact of unprofessional peer reviews in STEM fields on productivity, scientific aptitude and career trajectory
https://t.co/RMnVBUCT4n via @thePeerJ
@TheDrKittendorf @AcademicChatter @monroe_v1225 The longer one is here and it's an interesting case because you'll learn about @thePeerJ
Peerj and their unusual business model...I spent 20 minutes to figure out whether they were predatory or not
https://t.co/M3aBoWiLoQ
@ARC_Tracker What if they are snippets submitted anonymously. Why / how would the ARC trace them (if they don't have $ to spend on improving peer review...)
Would a DVCR care if it is not traced @DrEmmaLJohnston ?
At least one US effort w/ ethics approval published
https://t.co/hjpoOwebQG
@BenBondLamberty With this, we'll discuss the importance of professionalism while peer reviewing - something Ben's presentation touches on - but we're also reading this recent paper:
https://t.co/0HdeVAU57D
PR recommendations:
-Mentor
-Follow published best practices
-Self-awareness on constructive, impartial comments
-Encourage PR guides
-Add good/bad PR to codes of conduct
-Eds should prevent bad PR reaching authors
-Review others as you wish to be reviewed https://t.co/AcENdWIM2p