Jonny Coates

Should have known by the tone that this was Mr Anderson again.

I also really need to have a chat with @dorassessment.bsky.social at some point :)

EU Presidency High-Level Conference on Reforming Research Assessment At this conference, Aalborg University together with co-organizers as well as the Danish Presidency and the European Commission will address the need for reforming research assessment, present progres...

This is how you do "invite only" events!

You're never going to get good viewpoint diversity if you rely on people you already know - who often already attend the same meetings and say the same things over and over.

www.cerra.aau.dk - also a great looking meeting!

Yes to the attention score method of determining when to do peer review!

This is something I've suggested a few times in the past.

I'm biased but I think this is a really good guide 😉

I'm also very open to feedback and collaborations on a version 2.

Or, even better, tailoring this to specific departments/institutions to incorporate specific institutional policies too! (*cough* any librarians interested?)

This is fantastic to see ❤️

If anyone is new to preprints then I've been developing some factual and informative ~5 min whiteboard videos - bit.ly/preprint_whi...

Also always happy to answer any questions anyone may have! Would love to help you in posting your first preprint

This is really a great way to get your research!

Testimonial for Rippling Ideas This form helps us collect invaluable testimonials from those we collaborate and work with. We are enormously grateful for any testimonials provided and they help showcase our impact and relevance. If...

If you've previously worked with me then please consider completing a testimonial for me to help with my new non-profit!

Every little helps :)

docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1F... (it takes less than 5 mins to complete and can be anonymous)

Starmer is handing the country to reform.

Sad to say but I have zero confidence in the leadership. It's a complete failure and dereliction of responsibility and leadership.

Completely out of touch with the average person and seemingly ignoring any criticism (advice) or more diverse viewpoints.

Oh this looks so interesting! I wish meetings and workshops would be more hybrid - it's so easy for a smaller meeting

I think experiments are brilliant (whether I agree with them or not) and I still give talks about PRC but the coordinated effort to make that the dominant model is where I find problems. It shuts down other experiments which is the opposite of what's really needed right not, imo.

A great example is PREreview. They are a platform that genuinely expands who reviews, what can be reviewed, training and is more focussed on helping authors improve work as opposed to a QC step. I'd love more efforts like that. Or a really in depth detailed review service.

I've seen notes from meetings about PRC (which as a dissenting voice I wasn't invited to) and it's a lot of the same people saying the same things. No real critical discussion. In part I suspect because those advocating for PRC have vested interests in it being the dominant model.

My problem is the lack of real improvements to review and the refusal of those involved to have open and critical discussions - dissenting voiced and any alternative viewpoints are not seemingly welcomed. Certainly not listened too.

Absolutely if the preprint has been revised then yes. Or separately those reviews should. But a preprint that hasn't changed, hosted somewhere else gets us right back into the territory of brands - where you were reviewed now (instead of where you published)

Our latest video! If you want to get more involved with preprints then this will walk you though how.

I'll be writing and making more noise about the PRC model and my wider concerns around that now being a goal and why I belive it's a mistake

The original preprint isn't changed so not sure that does constitute a reason for a new DOI. PIDs for reviews/editorial assessment is great - and could be a way of linking them to the preprint.

I think there needs to be much better discussion on whether this is necessary at all. Preprint platforms are capable of displaying this kind of info alongside the preprint - in addition to a wider array if trust markers (which is better for science & readers)

So why make it harder for readers?

Very!

Yes! I've been calling for at least a basic metascience and history of science/publishing course as part of every students training for ages now.

It definitely seems to have become a goal. I've been trying to talk about that evolutionary space but I feel like I've lost that battle (though my new nonprofit is extremely focussed on that).

I think this is effectively what PRC will do. But preprints don't themselves have to be hijacked like this. We could focus more on wider signals of trust/reliability, less focus on just peer review whilst also shifting what it actually is.

HHMI adopts Plan U journals.plos.org/plosbiology/...

I've been calling it PITA (preprint - integrity & trust - assessment). I hate PRC as I feel it's being pushed without enough critical thought and has huge potential to damage the preprint space.

This is great news.

Though 'reviewed preprints" does feel a bit dated by now. Last year a few people asked me why EMBO still only accepted reviewed preprints.

I don't advocate for preprints because of a title or a job. I don't even do it to get paid (though that was nice).

I advocate because I am passionate and care deeply about change in academia and believe that currently preprints are the best route forward.

This is possibly the worst time to create such an organisation, given the funding situation.

BUT. It's also needed more than ever - a reaction I've had from a lot of people now (who kindly have also been excited that I'm personally involved).

So, if you're up for a challenge, then come join us.

Come join our tribe to make a real meaningful difference.

We're about action and tangible change, not empty words or the same old meetings.