A study piqued my curiosity in a news feed recently. Yoga could reduce depression symptoms, researchers said – but only if you expected it to (Uebelacker 2018). Yoga for depression, it turns out, is
0000-0002-8715-2896 Technically, the “most journals don’t charge authors” statement could well be true. Most open access journals may not charge authors. The source that’s used to support the claim is generally DOAJ –
0000-0002-8715-2896 There’s a sort of Godwin’s Law for discussions on open peer review. Sooner or later, someone’s going to say, “We can’t expect early career researchers to sign peer reviews, because of fear of retaliation”. And
0000-0002-8715-2896 It was a turning point. The previous year, the US Civil Rights Act had passed. On 26 January 1969 in New Orleans, 17 African-American mathematicians gathered at the annual national mathematical meeting.
0000-0002-8715-2896 All those “Reviewer 2″s – can’t live with ’em, can’t live without ’em! So how can we improve both the quality of “the scientific literature” and the role of peer review in
0000-0002-8715-2896 It’s not enough to mean well, is it? Principles matter, but so do the effects of acting on our strongly held beliefs. We need to keep re-visiting our values in considering the impact
0000-0002-8715-2896 Over 500 science journal editors, publishers, and meta-researchers are gathered in Chicago for the 8th Peer Review Congress (#PRC8), a once-every-4-years researchfest about “enhancing the quality and credibility of science”. I’m live-blogging – you can catch