u/dawnlxh. (2021). Reviewing peer review: does the process need to change, and how?. r/BehSciAsk. Reddit

Antonoyiannakis, M. (2021). Does Publicity in the Science Press Drive Citations? ArXiv:2104.13939 [Physics]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2104.13939

Health Nerd on Twitter. (2020). Twitter. Retrieved 26 February 2021, from https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1327872397794439168

Heesen, R., & Bright, L. K. (2020). Is Peer Review a Good Idea? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 000–000. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axz029

Tulleken, C. van. (2021). Covid-19: Sputnik vaccine rockets, thanks to Lancet boost. BMJ, 373, n1108. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1108

Nicola Low #EveryDayCounts #StillFBPE on Twitter. (2020). Twitter. Retrieved 27 February 2021, from https://twitter.com/nicolamlow/status/1336958661151821825

ReconfigBehSci on Twitter. (2020). Twitter. Retrieved 27 February 2021, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1339855911796543488

Yesilada, M., Holford, D. L., Wulf, M., Hahn, U., Lewandowsky, S., Herzog, S., Radosevic, M., Stuchlý, E., Taylor, K., Ye, S., Saxena, G., & El-Halaby, G. (2021). Who, What, Where: Tracking the development of COVID-19 related PsyArXiv preprints. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/evmgs

ReconfigBehSci on Twitter: ‘I just had cause to revisit the Friston modelling paper from Sept: Https://t.co/QOTC8fXV0n 1/n’ / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved 26 February 2021, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1336277391233208320

This doesn't work well with scripts (and style elements) injected by the Hypothesis bookmarklet or the Wayback Machine's toolbar. On that note, it's pretty poor hygiene on their part to (a) inject this stuff in the body to begin with, and (b) not include at the very least a class attribute clearly defining the origin/role of the injected content. As I described elsewhere:

set the class on the injected element to an abbreviated address like <style class="example.org/sidebar/2.4/injected-content/">. And then drop a page there explaining the purpose and requirements (read: assumptions) of your injected element. This is virtually guaranteed not to conflict with any other class use (e.g. CSS rules in applied style sheets), and it makes it easier for other add-ons (or the page author or end user) to avoid conflicts with you.

Dealing with it this way is a mistake. The only reasonable thing to do is to tell the user to adjust their browser's default font settings or deal with it. (This seems to only affect Firefox's default UA stylesheet/preferences, not Chrome.)

Check out how the most recent iteration of the w2g streamline "client" https://graph.5apps.com/LP/streamline approaches styling.

Lewis, D. (2021). Long COVID and kids: Scientists race to find answers. Nature, d41586-021-01935–01937. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01935-7

https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2008/2008.12.41/

A searing review of David R. Slavitt's translation of Lucretius.

The "close enough" nature of the translation seems like the intellectual slide shown by too many moderns which decontextualizes our historical precedents. Perhaps fine for a quick view, but could be a slippery slope for taking as part of the basis for Western intellectual tradition.

David R. Slavitt's translation isn't as solid as those of A.E. Stallings or Ronald Melville.

I've been skimming Stallings' this morning and it is quite nice. I'll have to pull up Melville's.

Ronald Melville, Lucretius On the Nature of the Universe. Oxford, 1997. Also Anthony M. Esolen, Lucretius On the Nature of Things. Baltimore, 1995.

Drury, John, Guanlan Mao, Ann John, Atiya Kamal, G. James Rubin, Clifford Stott, Tushna Vandrevala, and Theresa M. Marteau. ‘Behavioural Responses to Covid-19 Health Certification: A Rapid Review’. BMC Public Health 21, no. 1 (24 June 2021): 1205. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11166-0.

On the value of revising and revisiting notes. Similar to Raymond Llull's combinatorial creativity, but in a different form which doesn't require memory the same way.

Soderberg, C. K., Errington, T. M., Schiavone, S. R., Bottesini, J., Thorn, F. S., Vazire, S., Esterling, K. M., & Nosek, B. A. (2021). Initial evidence of research quality of registered reports compared with the standard publishing model. Nature Human Behaviour, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01142-4

Sallam, M. (2021). COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Worldwide: A Concise Systematic Review of Vaccine Acceptance Rates. Vaccines, 9(2), 160. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9020160

Mills, F., Symons, D. C., & Carter, D. H. (2021). Exploring the Role of Enforcement in Promoting Adherence with Protective Behaviours During COVID-19. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/89sj3

Evans, T. R., Branney, P., Clements, A., & Hatton, E. (2021). Preregistration of Applied Research for Evidence-Based Practice [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/snj2d

Mosleh, M., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021). Field experiments on social media [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dgmc2

ECDC (2020) Systemic review of the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of newer and enhanced seasonal influenza vaccines for the prevention of lab-confirmed flu in individuals aged 18 and over Available at: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/seasonal-influenza-vaccines-systematic-review-efficacy.pdf

Penţa, M. A., & Băban, A. (2018). Message Framing in Vaccine Communication: A Systematic Review of Published Literature. Health Communication, 33(3), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1266574

Parsons, J. E., Newby, K. V., & French, D. P. (2018). Do interventions containing risk messages increase risk appraisal and the subsequent vaccination intentions and uptake? – A systematic review and meta‐analysis. British Journal of Health Psychology, 23(4), 1084–1106. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12340

COVID-19 reinfection rate less than 1 percent for those with severe illness, study finds: Two deaths were associated with reinfection, but most cases were mild—ScienceDaily. (n.d.). Retrieved June 24, 2021, from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/06/210615132103.htm

A short text "interview" with the authors of three works that posted versions of their books online for an open review via annotation.

These could be added to the example and experience of Kathleen Fitzpatrick.

This is an apropos question. It is also somewhat contingent on what sort of platform the author "owns" to be able to do outreach and drive readers and participation.

I was honored to interview Remi and Antero (along with other MITP authors) about collaborative community review and how it fit with their traditional peer review experience. The blog post can be found here.

Calster, B. V., Wynants, L., Riley, R. D., Smeden, M. van, & Collins, G. S. (2021). Methodology over metrics: Current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.018

Serra-Garcia, M., & Gneezy, U. (2021). Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones. Science Advances, 7(21), eabd1705. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd1705

Table 1 - Literature Review looks at empirical, conceptual, and total number of articles

Crocker-Buque, T., & Mounier-Jack, S. (2018). Vaccination in England: A review of why business as usual is not enough to maintain coverage. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1351. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6228-5

Teague, S., Shatte, A. B. R., Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M., & Hutchinson, D. M. (2021). Social media monitoring of mental health during disasters: A scoping review of methods and applications. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ykz2n

But peer reviewers are largely responsible for generating the assertions you talk about in the next paragraph, and which apparently, justify the cost of publishing.

Hammerstein, S., König, C., Dreisoerner, T., & Frey, A. (2021). Effects of COVID-19-Related School Closures on Student Achievement—A Systematic Review [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mcnvk

Yesilada, M., & Lewandowsky, S. (2021). A systematic review: The YouTube recommender system and pathways to problematic content. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/6pv5c

Online reviews are the type of social proof most of us rely on. So, it comes as no surprise that businesses compete to be “found.”

Luckily enough, websites like Yelp exist. Users daily rate and review restaurants, barbershops, hotel rooms, and more. That’s partially a reason why Yelp has become the most visited go-to review site in the US.

How to build a business directory website? What features make sense to invest an effort in? Read on as we have crunched the best solutions and prepared tips on how to create a review website like Yelp. https://www.codica.com/blog/how-to-build-a-website-like-yelp/

An easy access dashboard now provides links to scientific discussion and evaluation of bioRxiv preprints. (n.d.). Retrieved 30 May 2021, from https://connect.biorxiv.org/news/2021/05/14/dashboard .

Lytras, T., Kopsachilis, F., Mouratidou, E., Papamichail, D., & Bonovas, S. (2015). Interventions to increase seasonal influenza vaccine coverage in healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 12(3), 671–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2015.1106656

I've reviewed the PI7 here.

Abysmally sad that this is presented without the context of any of the work over the last century and a half of spaced repetition.

I wonder that this point slipped past the reviewers and isn't at least discussed somewhat narratively here.

Prof. Gavin Yamey MD MPH. (2021, April 20). I was very pleased to see Levitt resign yesterday from the science advisory board of the anti-vaxx group PANDA. Previously Sikora had resigned. This press release mentions other resignations. Anyone know if the 3 GBD authors finally resigned? Here’s PANDA’s views on vaccines: Https://t.co/wVZX7XujZ3 [Tweet]. @GYamey. https://twitter.com/GYamey/status/1384476491317227525

• [[biodiversity]] [[economics]]

The National Board of Review was created in 1909 but was not universally enforced. It was an early more relaxed version of what would eventually become the Production Code Administration (the Hays Code) and later lead to the Production Code of 1934 - a self censorship committee enforced by Hollywood's major studios to stave off the threat of government censorship after many high profile scandals and some so called "indecent" films

Dubé, E., Leask, J., Wolff, B., Hickler, B., Balaban, V., Hosein, E., & Habersaat, K. (2018). The WHO Tailoring Immunization Programmes (TIP) approach: Review of implementation to date. Vaccine, 36(11), 1509–1515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.12.012

Brewer, N. T., DeFrank, J. T., & Gilkey, M. B. (2016). Anticipated Regret and Health Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. Health Psychology : Official Journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, 35(11), 1264–1275. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000294

Howard, J., Huang, A., Li, Z., Tufekci, Z., Zdimal, V., Westhuizen, H.-M. van der, Delft, A. von, Price, A., Fridman, L., Tang, L.-H., Tang, V., Watson, G. L., Bax, C. E., Shaikh, R., Questier, F., Hernandez, D., Chu, L. F., Ramirez, C. M., & Rimoin, A. W. (2021). An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(4). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2014564118

Maarten van Smeden on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved 4 March 2021, from https://twitter.com/MaartenvSmeden/status/1328093246829064192

ReconfigBehSci on Twitter: ‘Great presentation by Cooper Smout on @proFOK for trying to overcome the collective action problem of open science #scibeh2020 https://t.co/Gsr66BRGcJ’ / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved 4 March 2021, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1325749613731713024

Strasser, M. A., Sumner, P. J., & Meyer, D. (2021). COVID-19 news distress in youth: A systematic review protocol. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/nkxqr

"Ούτε..."

Συνακτικο?

Που ανηκουν αυτές οι δυναμεις?

Trovò, B., & Massari, N. (2021). Ants-Review: A Protocol for Incentivized Open Peer-Reviews on Ethereum. ArXiv:2101.09378 [Cs]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2101.09378

Chen, X., Chen, Z., Azman, A. S., Deng, X., Sun, R., Zhao, Z., Zheng, N., Chen, X., Lu, W., Zhuang, T., Yang, J., Viboud, C., Ajelli, M., Leung, D. T., & Yu, H. (2021). Serological evidence of human infection with SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Global Health, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00026-7

Pleskac, T. J., Kyung, E., Chapman, G. B., & Urminsky, O. (2021, April 23). Single- or double-blind review? A field study of system preference, reliability, bias, and validity. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/q2tkw

This is a pretty solid overview of a literature review workflow. He doesn't use the words, but this is not a half bad way to build a digital commonplace book or digital garden/personal wiki for research use.

I hadn't thought about using Grav as the method for storing and displaying all of it, but perhaps it's worth looking into?

The importance of the Sprint Goal escalated again. This crucial bit of discussion during Sprint Planning empowers the team to make Yes/No decisions on work pulled into a sprint, not only during planning, but also during the sprint itself. It focuses the product owner and development team on delivering something valuable to be shown in the Sprint Review. (Start with the end in mind.)

Ten scientific reasons in support of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2—The Lancet. (n.d.). Retrieved April 19, 2021, from https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00869-2/fulltext

Volle Transparenz wäre m.E. erst dann gegeben, wenn auch abgelehente Einreichungen mitsamt der der Gutachten, die zur Ablehnung geführt haben ins Netz gestellt werden. Mir scheint, um Meinungs- oder Zitationskartelle zu verhindern (oder zumindest offensichtlich werden zu lassen), wäre das sogar wichtiger als die Namen der Gutachter anzugeben.

COVID research updates: Coronavirus antibodies last for months — if you have them. (2021). Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00502-w

Machine learning models for diagnosing COVID-19 are not yet suitable for clinical use. (2021, March 15). University of Cambridge. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/machine-learning-models-for-diagnosing-covid-19-are-not-yet-suitable-for-clinical-use

Brown, K. F., Kroll, J. S., Hudson, M. J., Ramsay, M., Green, J., Long, S. J., Vincent, C. A., Fraser, G., & Sevdalis, N. (2010). Factors underlying parental decisions about combination childhood vaccinations including MMR: A systematic review. Vaccine, 28(26), 4235–4248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.04.052

Dubé, E., Laberge, C., Guay, M., Bramadat, P., Roy, R., & Bettinger, J. A. (2013). Vaccine hesitancy. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 9(8), 1763–1773. https://doi.org/10.4161/hv.24657

Mambrini, A., Baronchelli, A., Starnini, M., Marinazzo, D., & De Domenico, M. (2020). PRINCIPIA: A Decentralized Peer-Review Ecosystem. ArXiv:2008.09011 [Nlin, Physics:Physics]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2008.09011

Dubé, E., Gagnon, D., & MacDonald, N. E. (2015). Strategies intended to address vaccine hesitancy: Review of published reviews. Vaccine, 33(34), 4191–4203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.041

BAME COVID-19 DEATHS - What do we know? Rapid Data & Evidence Review. (n.d.). CEBM. Retrieved June 2, 2020, from https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/bame-covid-19-deaths-what-do-we-know-rapid-data-evidence-review/

This is an intriguing off-label use case for Hypothes.is which is within the realm of peer-review use cases.

Dan is essentially using the idea of annotation as engagement within a textbook as a means of proactively improving it. He's mentioned it before in Hypothes.is Social (and Private) Annotation.

Because one can actively see the gaps without readers necessarily being aware of their "review", this may be a far better method than asking for active reviews of materials.

Reviewers are probably not as likely to actively mark sections they don't find engaging. Has anyone done research on this space for better improving texts? Certainly annotation provides a means for helping to do this.

Deevybee. (2020, December 6). BishopBlog: Faux peer-reviewed journals: a threat to research integrity. BishopBlog. http://deevybee.blogspot.com/2020/12/faux-peer-reviewed-journals-threat-to.html

Kozlowski, Diego, Jennifer Dusdal, Jun Pang, and Andreas Zilian. ‘Semantic and Relational Spaces in Science of Science: Deep Learning Models for Article Vectorisation’. ArXiv:2011.02887 [Physics], 5 November 2020. http://arxiv.org/abs/2011.02887.

[[do]] review references