RT @Jayson_Marwaha@twitter.com

Only 31% of original surgical research studies use common “open science” practices to make their work reproducible and transparent.

Thanks to @JAMA_current@twitter.com @BMJ_latest@twitter.com @Stanford@twitter.com for this important conference on improving the scientific process. @peerrevcongress@twitter.com #PRC9

🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/Jayson_Marwaha/status/1597037820115574784

RT @BrianNosek
Massive status bias in peer review.

534 reviewers randomized to review the same paper revealing the low status, high status, or neither author. 65% reject low status, 23% reject high status.

Amazing work by Juergen Huber and colleagues. #prc9

RT @RetractionWatch@twitter.com

"Do we need journal peer review? Changes between 121 epidemiology preprints and their subsequent journal publications" -- detailed findings from @Mario_Malicki@twitter.com et al presented at #PRC9 https://www.ti.ubc.ca/2021/08/25/aug-25-timss-do-we-need-journal-peer-review/

🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/RetractionWatch/status/1568634178505420801

funny, it seems no one knows if peer review is somehow useful.

RT @RetractionWatch@twitter.com

"Are preprints more likely to be wrong than journal articles?"
"That's a great question."
#PRC9

🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/RetractionWatch/status/1568631121276968960

Meritocracy, my ass. #AcademicTwitter #PeerReview
---
RT @BrianNosek
Massive status bias in peer review.

534 reviewers randomized to review the same paper revealing the low status, high status, or neither author. 65% reject low status, 23% reject high status.

Amazing work by Juergen Huber and colleagues. #prc9
https://twitter.com/BrianNosek/status/1568270176847552512

RT @BrianNosek@twitter.com

Massive status bias in peer review.

534 reviewers randomized to review the same paper revealing the low status, high status, or neither author. 65% reject low status, 23% reject high status.

Amazing work by Juergen Huber and colleagues. #prc9

🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/BrianNosek/status/1568270176847552512

RT @BrianNosek@twitter.com

Massive status bias in peer review.

534 reviewers randomized to review the same paper revealing the low status, high status, or neither author. 65% reject low status, 23% reject high status.

Amazing work by Juergen Huber and colleagues. #prc9

🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/BrianNosek/status/1568270176847552512

Wow, it's almost like letting a couple random gatekeepers decide the fate of someone's research was not a great idea, after all.

RT @BrianNosek@twitter.com

Massive status bias in peer review.

534 reviewers randomized to review the same paper revealing the low status, high status, or neither author. 65% reject low status, 23% reject high status.

Amazing work by Juergen Huber and colleagues. #prc9

🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/BrianNosek/status/1568270176847552512