Jonny Coates

Not too clear yet as I'm still working out the exact format/idea. I reckon maybe 3hrs/month for 6 months a year.

Shouldn't we really be moving away from the Impact Factor? No point saying it isn't good but then celebrate having one. If enough journals dropped it then it'd vanish with little impact.

Our first newsletter went out last week!

If you missed it you can read it here: lnkd.in/eckk3wQa

We're continuing to seek funding & collaborators whilst developing some exciting new materials

So, if you're interested in preprints, trust in research or academic culture sign up (lnkd.in/gX94dryg)

One for your reading lists 🙂 and it's very much worth a read!

At the moment there's no funding but I am working on that aspect - at least to provide compensation for time

I'm looking for someone who'd be interested in co-hosting a new metascience podcast I'm currently developing.

Also editing/producing roles if people would like to be involved.

Happy to chat and share more for those interested.

#metascience

Any bets on how quickly he'll repackage himself and be grifting again?

It was great to be part of this working group and to contribute to the recommendations.

Would have loved to have gone to this! Really great theme.

Rippling Ideas Our goal is to challenge the status quo, embrace innovation, and create meaningful, lasting change to academia across preprinting and open science, trust in research and academic culture.

ripplingideas.beehiiv.com/subscribe

If you're looking to spend less than 3 minutes doing something worthwhile this Friday or weekend you should sign up for my brand new newsletter on #preprints, Academic culture & Trust in research.

There's going to be 1 email per month ☺️

#academicSky

Not that I'm in anyway agreeing with the paper & it clearly does seem to be wrong given nobody else has found similar data or managed any of the replications.

So if there's no fraud or misconduct why retract? By all means slap a big "this isn't correct" banner across it but retraction feels like a strange step to take.

Is all "wrong" work going to be retracted? Or just the big stuff? What counts as replicated? (1 exp, 2, more?)

Lonni is spectacular and absolutely deserves this kind of positive attention!

To achieve this we need some really strong advocacy (which is currently severely lacking, as is the funding for such things).

The OS space feels a little like it's being gutted at the moment - some of the best and most talented AR leaving or being pushed out.

And I'm out here struggling to get jobs I'd actually excel at!

But seriously, that man has absolutely no right being in the position he's in, he is unqualified in every way apart from loyalty to Trump.

FWIW, I'd love the Northern Uni's to be the country leaders in open science practices and research culture.

We really need more diverse voices at the tables and in places where these ridiculous decisions are being made.

People like Paul Nurse (who I've heard is very keen for Crick to get yet more funding) are harming UK science by focussing so much money in the same places.

Important considerations when using AI

-Use should be declared, including which LLM was used and how exactly it was used.
-human-responsibility and oversight is essential for all uses of AI
-manuscripts should not be shared with any third party, which includes uploading them to an LLM model

5. Flagging preprints that may need peer review?

A potential use of AI is to determine which preprints might need human review and more in-depth analysis. Not every research output needs to be reviewed. With the system at breaking point, this could be a huge step.

4. Summarising human-authored reviews

Transparent peer review isn't sufficient on its own. The review reports must be surfaced and made accessible so that they are usable and add value to readers.

3. Automated checks

A great use for AI is to automate some tasks to reduce the burden on reviewers and editors. It could also help surface any previous (public) reviews

2. Improving grammar in peer review reports

Improving grammar for non-native English speakers could help reduce some of the discrimination that exits in the system.

1. Finding reviewers

Some preprint review services are already utilising AI in this way and this is likely to expand so definitely watch this space

What are some responsible uses of AI in peer review?

First (new) blog post for the website

Follow @ripplingideas.bsky.social for more like this and sign up to our upcoming newsletter: ripplingideas.beehiiv.com/subscribe

🧵

Very excited to finally share this properly.

Still got some work to do & might reframe some things but it gives everyone an idea as to my areas of focus, research and what I can offer!

I've said before at conferences that community-led publishing would benefit from being more experimental and focussing more on getting good work out into the world rather than replicating the workflows, systems, and outputs of commercial publishing.

I'm physically based in Sheffield (UK) but anywhere that would like to take me pretty much. The ideal situation would be somewhere with a good metascience group

I'm looking for academic affiliation. I don't need to be paid & I'm happy to offer something in return!

I've got an exceptionally strong track record and full metascience research program ready to roll.

Yet another reason to for international conferences to be held outside the United States.