Skip to main content

#Academia publication question:
What was the website where you see and can give feedback on specific journals (like time to decision, if your manuscript was accepted or not, were the reviews useful, etc)?
Internet is useless to find things these days.

Edit: @steveroyle found it! It's called Scirev

#AcademicJournals #SciRev

SciRev - Review the scientific review process

scirev.org
#academia #academicjournals #scirev @Stephen Royle
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to El Duvelle

El Duvelle
El Duvelle
• •

We should all try to give post-publication or post-rejection feedback there, I think it's really useful! Journals keep judging us, it's our turn to judge them ✊

Example for some journals:
#JournalOfNeuroscience : scirev.org/reviews/journal-of-…

#eLife: scirev.org/reviews/elife/

#PLoSBiology: scirev.org/reviews/plos-biolog…

#PLoSCompBiol : scirev.org/reviews/plos-comput…

#Science : scirev.org/reviews/science/

Reviews for "Elife" - Page 1 - SciRev

scirev.org
#science #plosbiology #elife #journalofneuroscience #ploscompbiol
in reply to El Duvelle

Johannes
Johannes
• •

@@neuromatch.social @steveroyle
I like the idea of evaluating journals, but looking at the reviews for eLife and especially Science it seems that the ratings mostly reflect the journal decision (reject/accept).

Those who got their manuscript rejected give no rating or a very negative one, those who got accepted mostly give high ratings. Very human, I was also not very amused when eLife rejected my manuscript, but it makes it difficult to evaluate the service the journal provides.

@Stephen Royle
in reply to Johannes

Stephen Royle
Stephen Royle
• •
@johannes_lehmann I agree. It would be really useful, but how to do it objectively? Besides the accept/reject bias and the response bias, there’s the issue of how recent the evaluation is relative to the decision. I'm sure you were incensed the day after the eLife decision but maybe two weeks later you would rate it differently. We also have no idea how good or bad the work was that was submitted.
Tagging @elduvelle back in
@El Duvelle @Johannes
in reply to Stephen Royle

El Duvelle
El Duvelle
• •
@johannes_lehmann Hmm I agree there might be some bias but you can still see when reading those reviews if they seem fair or not. And if more people use this system we should converge towards a better approximation of the "true value" of a journal. So I think we should spread the word and try to use it!
@Johannes
in reply to El Duvelle

Victor Buendía
Victor Buendía
• •
I really want something like this, but for PI reviews. There was some initiative but I cannot find anymore.
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Victor Buendía

El Duvelle
El Duvelle
• •
@vbuendiar what do you mean by PI reviews?
@Victor Buendía
in reply to El Duvelle

Victor Buendía
Victor Buendía
• •
a way to share experiences in a lab, and people should have this information when joining.
in reply to Victor Buendía

El Duvelle
El Duvelle
• •

@vbuendiar I am of two minds on this. On the one hand, it is very important to be able to avoid toxic PIs. On the other hand, much like the evaluations that students give to their teachers, these can be biased by different things unrelated to how good the PI / teacher actually is (e.g. sexism).

Not sure what the solution is but it is very important that all prospective students meet with current and past lab members before choosing a lab!

@Victor Buendía
in reply to Victor Buendía

Amy (She/Her)
Amy (She/Her)
• •
@vbuendiar YES. Someone was doing a map showing sexual harassment in academia but it could include positive things too. I can't find it and, if my memory doesn't fail me, it was limited to the US.
Edit: I found it. It is limited to the US and only shows documented cases. It's still a lot: academic-sexual-misconduct-dat…
@elduvelle

Welcome | Academic Sexual Misconduct Database

academic-sexual-misconduct-database.org
@Victor Buendía @El Duvelle
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
⇧