@createdbyrcw.bsky.socialA moment of great pride from my days working in the Publications Division at the American Chemical Society was being part of the editorial team that launched Journal of Proteome Research.
#sciencewriting #sciencepublishing #scicomms #proteomics #peerreview #publishing
@reviewerone.bsky.social4/4
Finally, look at the synthesis.
Does the conclusion reflect both methods fairly, or does one end up doing most of the interpretive work?
What do you find hardest about reviewing mixed-methods research?
@reviewerone.bsky.social3/4
Then check integration.
Where do the findings come together? Do the authors show how one strand explains, extends, or complicates the other?
That connection is often where the real mixed-methods value sits.
@reviewerone.bsky.social1/4
Mixed-methods research is not just two methods in one paper.
When reviewing it, you need to assess the qualitative and quantitative parts, but also whether they genuinely connect.
@dkochetkov.bsky.socialGrateful to CWTS communication team for hosting my seminar on the Publish-Review-Curate model during Peer Review Week 2026
@paulguinnessy.bsky.socialScience asks are we "ready for the robot reviewers," suggesting no, it can't replace human assessments of a manuscript’s novelty or overall quality. But #AI could help ease the #PeerReview crisis by screening manuscripts, flagging methodological problems, improving clarity, and detecting errors.
@brembs.mastodon.social.ap.brid.gyInteresting initiative I just became aware of:
#Peerreview is a finite resource, and every review invitation presents a choice about where our time goes. The Diamond Reviewer Pledge asks researchers to commit to reviewing at least one article a year for a #diamond #openaccess journal — free to […]
@plosbiology.orgModern #ScientificPublishing often incentivizes overstating results at the expense of ensuring rigor. @maxkrummel.bsky.social &co test #DiscoveryStack, which seeks to realign #PeerReview with its core purpose by separating the assessment of quality and impact @plosbiology.org 🧪 buff.ly/1GRnb4b
@reviewerone.bsky.socialThe best role for AI in peer review is to surface useful signals, not imitate reviewer judgment.
It can help with reference checks, consistency, and integrity screening, while the reviewer still decides what the evidence means.
@plosbiology.orgModern #ScientificPublishing often incentivizes overstating results at the expense of ensuring rigor. @maxkrummel.bsky.social &co test #DiscoveryStack, which seeks to realign #PeerReview with its core purpose by separating the assessment of quality & impact @plosbiology.org 🧪 buff.ly/1GRnb4b
@reviewerone.bsky.socialReviewer pressure is not just about invitation volume. Poor fit, tight deadlines, unclear expectations, long manuscripts, and repeated reminders can all add to it.
Which of these creates the most pressure in your experience?
#PeerReview #ReviewerCommunity #AcademicChatter #PeerReviewWeek
@reviewerone.bsky.socialWhen reviewing a data availability statement, check four things:
• Is it specific?
• Does it match the study?
• Are restrictions explained?
• Is it clear what readers can access and under what conditions?
Save this for your next review.
#PeerReview #ResearchIntegrity #AcademicSky #AcademicChatter
@ddmcd.bsky.socialHiccups on the way to integrating AI with peer review processes. But there is progress. #peerreview #science #editing 🔬🧪🔭 www.ddmcd.com/managing-tec...
@prereview.bsky.social🙌 Feeling inspired? Try out the dataset review workflow at PREreview.org, and contribute to making research outputs more reusable and trustworthy!
@reviewerone.bsky.social2/4
Reference checking is a good example.
Tools can surface retractions, incomplete citations, or unusual patterns quickly, while the reviewer decides whether those signals affect the manuscript.
@reviewerone.bsky.socialMost reviewers are authors too, but it is easy to forget what a review feels like from the other side.
This edition of #ReviewerInsights looks at what authors value in reviewer feedback, from clarity and timeliness to comments they can actually act on.
Read: buff.ly/8VAKB6z
@reviewerone.bsky.socialWhat do you think gets overlooked most often in #peerreview?
☑ Data availability
☑ Limitations
☑ Conflicts of interest
☑ Reporting guidelines
Vote, then tell us what you wish reviewers checked more consistently.
#AcademicX #PeerReviewers #ManuscriptReview #PeerReviewSkills #ReviewerOne
@leidenforce.bsky.socialThe peer-review system can itself be studied with data.
An analysis of 110,303 submissions to Science and Science Advances finds strong links between publication success, institutional prestige, research topic and author location.
@reviewerone.bsky.social#ReviewerTip: Compare the abstract and conclusion with the results.
If the language becomes more certain than the evidence allows, point out exactly where the interpretation goes too far.
Save this for your next review.
#PeerReview #PeerReviewTips #AcademicSky #Edusky #PeerReviewers
@aging-us.bsky.social✅ Explore our #blog post on: "AI-driven toolset for IPF and aging research associates lung fibrosis with accelerated aging."
#Summary ⬇️
https://aging-us.org/2025/09/ai-tools-reveal-how-ipf-and-aging-are-connected/
#aging #ipf #ai #proteomics #lungfibrosis #oa #peerreview #publishing