Nice overview on #Reproducibility by #F1000Research

https://f1000.com/resources-for-researchers/open-research/reproducibility/#formstack

Hope it inspires many of their authors and reviewers!

Don't want to give T&F your email? Download the PDF from https://f1000.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/F1000-058-%E2%80%93-Reproducibility-Guide_v1.pdf

It is a bit short on the steps that publishers and journals could take though. If you are an editor with F1000, take a look at http://cdchck.science/

#ReproducibleResearch #OpenScience #CODECHECK

#F1000Research aimed at #OpenPeerReview but is utterly failing. Sending a reminder just one week after a first request for a review (on version 2 of a text), and then saying nothing - effectively refusing to publish the review - for *six months* despite two reminders defeats the whole idea of open peer review.

#Qeios seems to be doing the opposite - after publishing a review immediately, it clarifies by email that it's a *preprint* server.

@academicchatter

[1] https://codeberg.org/boud/open_science_meta/src/branch/main/open_peer_review/F1000_git_report_CCBYSA

@academicchatter

Any opinions on #Qeios [0][1] for #OpenPeerReview? Columbia Uni Mailman SchPublicHealth [2] and NYT [3] seem to take it seriously. I'm rather annoyed at #F1000Research , which pressured me for a fast report on v2 of a paper but after 5 months and several reminders hasn't published my review of v2 [4].

Qeios sounds serious. Is it?

[0] https://www.qeios.com/publishing-policy

[1] https://www.qeios.com/recent-articles

[2] https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/new-journal-seeks-reduce-bias-scientific-publishing

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/28/opinion/peer-review-research-studies.html

[4] https://f1000research.com/articles/11-344/v2

#111BiblioCon
Ja, stimmt #Open_Research_Europe wird von #F1000Research betrieben. Es ist natürlich auch korrekt, dass F1000 #Taylor_and_Francis gehört.
Aber da der Plattformbetreiber ausgeschrieben wurde, kann Open Research Europe auch von einer anderen Firma betrieben werden, wenn dieser Service neu ausgeschrieben wird.
Das ist was substanziell Anderes als z.B. Science Direct oder Springer Link.

@dasaptaerwin

#F1000Research is not going to get many reviewers for its #OpenPeerReview system if after two and a half months, a review of version 2 of a paper is still not published:

https://f1000research.com/articles/11-344/v2

Receipt of my second review was confirmed by email on 6 Feb 2023 ...

#F1000 had a nice idea, but currently it doesn't seem to be working.

#OpenScience

https://framapiaf.org/@boud/108669474100439567

"There is already a rapidly accelerating race taking place between paper mills using ever more complex AI to produce fake papers at scale and publishers employing ever more sophisticated AI technology to detect issues."

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2022/12/15/ai-paper-mills-and-image-generation-require-a-co-ordinated-response-from-academic-publishers/

#PaperMills #AcademicPublishing #ScienceFraud #F1000Research #TaylorAndFrancis #AI #AIinScience #ImpactOfSocialSciences #SabinaAlam #RebeccaLawrence #FakeScience #PublicationEthics #ResearchIntegrity #AIArmsRace #SciencePublishing #JournalPublishing

@jospueyo @eliocamp @rstats @academicchatter If i get it right, they are using the #F1000Research technology as foundation. Methinks, the review process is quite similar.

@cartographer @stephenserjeant @dasaptaerwin

#F1000Research [1] has an interesting approach to #OpenPeerReview [2], in which preprints are called "published"; justification: once "published", an article rejected by reviewers cannot be submitted to another journal (but may be revised+resubmitted). In principle, this encourages reviewers to reject papers constructively, treating the authors respectfully [3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1000_%28publisher%29%23F1000Research

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_peer_review

[3] https://f1000research.com/articles/11-344/v1