Posts Tagged ‘peer review’

I seem to have been writing quite a lot of confidential reviews lately, of article submissions, grant applications and cases for promotion (way to make almost everyone a little bit paranoid…), and so I was intrigued by the news that a journal in the sciences, eLife, has decided to abandon the tradition of acceptance/rejection on the basis of peer review (see announcement here). If an editor decides that a submission is worth sending out to reviewers, then it will be published, together with the reviews.

To be honest, I’m not sure what problem this is supposed to be solving (more…)

Read Full Post »

It is perfectly possible that I spend too much time on the Internet, and on social media. But there is so much amazing stuff out there – insightful, informative, passionate, provocative, brilliantly written stuff, produced not for profit but for the sake of the ideas and the wish to communicate with others – and if it wasn’t for the Twitter I wouldn’t know a thing about most of it. My ‘best of’ list seems to get longer every year, perhaps because I’ve got into the habit of making notes as soon as I’ve read something, rather than relying on my ever more erratic memory to recall things from earlier in the year – and this is as much about reminding myself and revisiting things as it as about recommending that you should read them too… (more…)

Read Full Post »

This week’s exciting task – besides all the usual end of term stuff like marking, revision sessions, meetings with tutees and dissertation supervisees, writing emails to tutees and dissertation supervisees reminding them of the opportunity to come and see me before the end of term, writing emails to tutees and dissertation supervisees to point out the obvious advantages of coming to talk to me and to express a certain hurt that they haven’t even seen fit to respond… Ahem. This week’s exciting extra task has been to compile and submit a Rebuttal to the reviewers’ comments on a research project application that I’ve been coordinating with colleagues from across Europe. The content was fine, as said colleagues produced lots of great ideas and pithy responses, and my job was largely to hack this down into just 1200 words. A much bigger problem, as far as I was concerned, was the terminology.

I mean, ‘rebuttal’? “A form of evidence that is presented to contradict or nullify other evidence that has been presented by an adverse party.” Is this what we’re calling it now? (more…)

Read Full Post »