David Green, PhD

I like this a lot! I also feel like it would bring the number of articles back down to a reasonable level.

Yikes! We need more humans doing peer review, especially with all of the AI slop flooding the journals. I just don't see how AI can be a good reviewer yet.

The peer review system is breaking down. Here’s how we can fix it Peer review is so integral to the scholarly system that research would grind to a halt without it.

#PeerReview is indeed breaking down, but I believe we should build it back up instead of scrapping it entirely.

It's how we ensure trust in science.

What would make you more likely to review your colleagues' new research?

🧪 #SciPub #AcademicSky

At what point will we as a field finally abandon Impact Factors and focus the credibility on the actual science? 🧪

#SciPub #PeerReview #AcademicSky

Another article published at @stacksjournal.bsky.social using their new model of collaborative peer review! 🧪🌎

#OpenScience #AcademicSky #PeerReview

A new preprint server welcomes papers written and reviewed by AI With human peer review struggling to keep pace with machine-generated science, aiXiv enlists bots to help

A new #preprint server where articles are written and reviewed by AI. What could possibly go wrong? 🤔

Do you think #AI has a place in #ScientificPublishing and #PeerReview? How would you incorporate it in a thoughtful and ethical way?

🧪

😂

Do you think there's a future where journals will be able to make it mandatory for authors to include their data with publication?

Thanks! I'm glad you think our concept at @stacksjournal.bsky.social is interesting. Authors and reviewers have really enjoyed the process and found that it helped create better science.

I wish it was always the standard, but unfortunately it's not the case.

It definitely helps us learn and grow as researchers so I hope we see more and more journals bringing this process in.

I think it happens in some journals, but not all. Many of the times I've reviewed articles I don't even learn what the outcome was.

That's great that it's common in psychology journals. What's the process like for how they do it?

Jane Goodall, Eminent Primatologist Who Chronicled the Lives of Chimps, Dies at 91

Jane and her work had a special way of bringing you in.

She undoubtedly inspired entire generations of conservation biologists, behavioral ecologists, and optimists — Myself included.

She will be missed. 🧪🌍

Toucans -- Loud, colorful, and despised by all of the other birds. 🪶🌍

🔉Sound on!

What's one thing you'd change about #PeerReview as a reviewer?

I'll start: I'd love to see what the other reviewers said about the same paper so I can learn from their perspectives and expertise.

🧪 #SciPub #AcademicSky

So if you believe in #peerreview as a fundamental part of the scientific process that increases trust, take a look at what we're building at @stacksjournal.bsky.social.

I think you'll find it to be a breath of fresh air.

6/6

Which is why I think it's time to reimagine what the systems of #peerreview can and should look like.

It's actually why I left my faculty job to create a system of peer review that is ethical, transparent, and fair.

5/

In a world where science is losing its credibility and powerful people continue to undermine it, I believe we need to come together and show that #peerreview actually means something.

That it's how we safeguard the knowledge of our fields for generations to come.

4/

Guest Post:  Preprints Serve the Anti-science Agenda – This Is Why We Need Peer Review - The Scholarly Kitchen Science is built on a foundation of rigor and credibility. Preprints are adding to the crumbling of that foundation, which is already under attack by anti-science political agendas.

But above all, we need to ensure that the published science is trustworthy.

And that comes from structured peer review. Where qualified experts come together to not only vet each other's research, but to collaborate and help make it stronger.

3/

Yes, we need to remove barriers to sharing research.

Yes, the big publishers have taken advantage of scientists for too long.

Yes, it shouldn't cost thousands of dollars to have your work peer-reviewed.

2/

Opinion | Academic Publishing Has Become a Racket Scientists write and review papers without getting paid, and their institutions have to pay for access.

It's true: Academic publishing has become a racket.

But I think the idea that #peerreview can happen haphazardly in the comments of a preprint server is naive.

1/

🧪 #AcademicSky #SciPub

Ever watched a scarlet macaw delicately work to get at a piece of fruit?

These birds are more than just pretty; they're also important seed dispersers.

Sometimes they even swallow fruit whole and plant new trees with their droppings!

🪶🌍🧪

I left academia to build something I couldn't stop thinking about: a better way to #PeerReview research.

It isn't an easy path, but I couldn't stand by any longer without trying to fix a broken system.

I'm really proud of what we're building at stacksjournal.org.

🧪 #SciPub

Ant queen lays eggs that hatch into two species Bizarre discovery of interspecies cloning “almost impossible to believe,” biologists say

Well this is just the coolest!

Scientists discovered an ant queen that can lay eggs that hatch into two different species. 🐜🌍✨🤯

I love this perspective!

Glad to see more journals valuing these negative results!

That's too bad. Did they provide helpful feedback for you to improve your work? Have you been able to get them back into peer review?

Yes -- I love it when that happens! It's great when reviewers show up to collaborate and help improve the research.

Been there myself!

I completely agree that publicly funded research should be free to the public and be reproducible! I'm not sure that I believe AI should be playing a major role in peer review. I can see some opportunities for it to support human reviewers, but I don't think we should be relying solely on AI.

I agree that the system needs some major improvements. Journal name is no longer (has ever been?) a good proxy for quality.

I'm not quite sure that we can get rid of systematic peer review in favor of preprints, though. I believe we should be finding new ways to make peer review work again.