This is an excellent data-driven analysis of peer review, which calls into question the conventional wisdom that increasing demands on key scholars for reviews has broken the peer review system. By looking at actual aggregate data, Tim Vines shows that “…while it’s natural to join the dots between rising submissions and your own workload, and from there to the imminent demise of peer review, the connections may not really exist.” In fact, it appears that while senior scholars may be being bombarded by review requests, the increase is due to their own increased prominence, not to any systemic factors.
- If she was bullied for being straight (or any other reason), that sucks. But hard to take seriously w claim that 98… twitter.com/i/web/status/8… 5 hours ago
- Found the local coffee shop & local paper. Laconia NH https://t.co/5G8upvUhDl 5 hours ago
- I was so fortunate to meet Millie last year. Brilliant woman. twitter.com/MIT/status/834… 10 hours ago
- RT @MIT_AMITA: Save the date: March 8, 2017 International Women's Day, AMITA speaker Andrea Silbert in Cambridge, details to follow 10 hours ago
- There's a dating app that matches people on things they both hate. How long until SNL has sketch of couple called The Haters? 10 hours ago