Science is real
gorelicklab.org
Editor-in-chief, BiO (Biology Open)
Opinions are my own, not my employers
Daniel Gorelick
Loading...
Biology Open is published by the nonprofit @biologists.bsky.social so if they can pay reviewers…
Daniel Gorelick
Who would have thought that people would be incentivised by being paid for their expert opinions?
It's normal to pay for professional services. Hopefully the big for-profit players will wake up and realise that they will have to pay too, to maintain their "premium" reputations.
Paying peer reviewers works.
Expanded Fast & Fair experiment @biologyopen.bsky.social:
• 5.5 vs 37.7 working days to decision with reviews
• ~3 vs ~9 reviewer invitations per manuscript
• no reduction in editor-assessed review quality
• similar acceptance rates
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6...
Check out our Editor's Choice from Carbrera, Mohamed, @danielgorelick.bsky.social & co @bcmhouston.bsky.social on how folate & magnesium can prevent developmental toxicity caused by a common #HIV drug in #zebrafish
Highlight & article:
⚡ doi.org/10.1242/dmm....
📰 doi.org/10.1242/dmm....
Michael Doube
Daniel Gorelick
🚨The Kasper lab is hiring! Funded positions for a postdoc and research assistant.🚨 We study regulatory mechanisms regulating vascular and hematopoietic development using zebrafish 🐟. For postdocs, contact me [email protected]. For RAs, apply here: searchjobs.dartmouth.edu/postings/85822
Yet another important benefit of having not-for-profit publishers within the scientific publisher ecosystem.
They can do interesting (sometimes risky) experiments, testing innovations that aim to benefit the scientific community rather than enriching shareholders.
Up with this sort of thing!
Based on the guidelines we issued yesterday, please obtain prior approval for the collaborations you began years ago.
It what other profession are highly qualified individuals expected to provide their expertise to for-profit companies for free, getting only the ‘honour’ of having helped and perhaps their name mentioned in a back cover once a year, which no one will read nor care about?
DMM Journal
Paying peer reviewers works.
Expanded Fast & Fair experiment @biologyopen.bsky.social:
• 5.5 vs 37.7 working days to decision with reviews
• ~3 vs ~9 reviewer invitations per manuscript
• no reduction in editor-assessed review quality
• similar acceptance rates
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6...
2 Fast 2 Fair
Follow up to the Fast & Fair pilot study at @biologyopen.bsky.social where peer reviewers are paid.
Dionna Kasper
Paying peer reviewers works.
Expanded Fast & Fair experiment @biologyopen.bsky.social:
• 5.5 vs 37.7 working days to decision with reviews
• ~3 vs ~9 reviewer invitations per manuscript
• no reduction in editor-assessed review quality
• similar acceptance rates
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6...
I have often been critical of the leadership @aaas.org but they just took action on the new OMB rules that will politicize science, speaking out and notifying members. I hope all take the time to follow their advice, contact Congress, and most important, post a comment
www.aaas.org/news/aaas-st...
Daniel Gorelick
Sally Lowell
Carl T. Bergstrom
Paying peer reviewers works.
Expanded Fast & Fair experiment @biologyopen.bsky.social:
• 5.5 vs 37.7 working days to decision with reviews
• ~3 vs ~9 reviewer invitations per manuscript
• no reduction in editor-assessed review quality
• similar acceptance rates
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6...
The peer-review system needs an update. Biology Open did a cool experiment - contract reviewers in advance, and compensate them for a job well done. The results: it accelerates the process without loss of quality! Very promising. It’s not like for-profit journals can’t afford it…
Daniel Gorelick
Stephen Royle
most journals have fat profits, they can definitely afford to pay those who do an essential part of their business
Daniel Gorelick
Paying peer reviewers works.
Expanded Fast & Fair experiment @biologyopen.bsky.social:
• 5.5 vs 37.7 working days to decision with reviews
• ~3 vs ~9 reviewer invitations per manuscript
• no reduction in editor-assessed review quality
• similar acceptance rates
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6...
Mark Peifer (He, him)
Paying peer reviewers works.
Expanded Fast & Fair experiment @biologyopen.bsky.social:
• 5.5 vs 37.7 working days to decision with reviews
• ~3 vs ~9 reviewer invitations per manuscript
• no reduction in editor-assessed review quality
• similar acceptance rates
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6...
