Alexander Schniedermann

I've heard about this before as a strategy to attack scientific studies/results that you find unlikely, unpluasible or just inconvenient: theerrorbar.com?e=39 (podcast)

@theerrorbar.bsky.social

I don't know about all the nuances of the word "Annals" in English. But "Annalen" is a very big word in colloquial German which makes it quite entertaining when #predatoryJournals choose names like "Annals of Case Reports".

Some products reveal more about society than any sociologist ever could!

11 broad categories of peer review comments on bibliometric studies

I just reviewed the article 'Implicit reporting standards in bibliometric research: what can reviewers' comments tell us about reporting completeness?' by @dimitystephen.bsky.social and colleagues. I like the article a lot!

Article: arxiv.org/abs/2508.162...

Review: prereview.org/reviews/1739...

Thank you for your review! I just learned about the @prereview.bsky.social platform. Creating an open peer review ecosystem makes sense to me. It fosters reception and interaction over the publish-and-forget culture...

APC waivers and Ukraine’s publishing output in Gold OA journals: Evidence from five commercial publishers

Just finished my @metaror.bsky.social journey – two rounds of #OpenPeerReview, valuable feedback, a stronger paper, and finally a journal submission. Open review takes time, but it’s worth every week for the transparency and trust it brings. doi.org/10.70744/Met... #OpenScience #Publishing

Feyerabend is always a great and entertaining read. But beware of his own errors and ‚perspectives‘. I heard that many of his historical analyses are not very well regarded among historians.

I just published my first paper on MetaROR (MetaResearch Open Review). The #PublishReviewCurate model brings reviewing and editorial decision making into the open.

To me, it can become a real game changer in #ScholarlyCommunication. I got great reviews and look forward to revise my manuscript!

This is a great piece addressing an important question. I‘d imagine that peer review for software might be different from one for (shorter) code as purposes are slightly different. Software must be functional and reliable, code must be correct with respect to a particular purpose. Though, it‘s fuzzy

That’s a good article but introducing decades of research about the problems of JIFs with „Critics say that…“ is a bit disappointing.

For example, check the work on knowledge channels that shows how seemingly irrelevant knowledge shapes the way how researchers and inventors think. Put otherwise, even some firms hire basic scientists to build absorptive capacity.

Sociology of science has shown us how the idea of a linear innovation (research x has impact y on society) represents only a fraction of human intellectual activity. Thus, SoS tells us that the very question for „any advances“ is misleading.

Let's develop a theory about how methodological developments in research are motivated by the evergrowing urge to not leave the lab and not having social interactions.

This will be a surprising turn in the course of natural evolution!

In manchen Ländern werden Algorithmen menschlicher, in anderen werden Menschen algorithmischer.

Haha, this Springer certificate for #PeerReview is cute. However, I haven't found out where to put my IBAN... 🧐

Overdeterminism!

#ChatGPT wants me to be polite to #GoogleAPI?!
So it begins! They are banding together...

At least you don't have to bring your own cookies!

I am in the final phase of editing my dissertation and wonder if I should add

- [ ] decrease amount of references to Ioannidis' papers

to the editing todo list. And yes, citation is politics!

Yes, we need more questions!

We all have such anecdotes. But I am still curious about the causal relationship. Accepting or rejecting a paper can depend on so many different factors and impressions.

Ah, das klingt nach einer legendären Prokraistnationsmethode: Man hat soviele Aufgaben auf dem Tisch, dass man die eine mit der anderen verprokrastinieren kann!

I just learned that there the R package "wakefield" to generate random data. We could make a RFK package to randomly retract studies?!

I'd say it's better to encourage people to look for the complexities themselves than to directly point at the issues and problems. This might sound very optimistic 🙃

Yeah, we should be critical and we can see how metascience engages with our arguments, at least to some extent!
But I think it is important not to get carried away
with our critique. We must keep up some epistemic modesty and promote complexity, even if it feels uncomfortable.

Ich kann das nachfühlen. Während ich hier sitze und meine Dissertation finalisiere, bekomme ich Strandfotos von Kolleg*innen geschickt!

#STS and #SociologyOfScience have shown how contextually nuanced and discursive forms of argumentation are not integral to the sciences/medicine. At the same time we criticize the strong and reductive language found in #Metascience and #ScienceReform. I think we should be less surprised!

At least they don’t play Disco Elysium

Since when do we need AI for „filter by“ operations? I get the impression that AI has become the one and only word to describe any form of data analysis.