@reviewerone.bsky.social“Minor revision” might be the most hopeful phrase in #academicpublishing
Then you open the comments: another analysis, a longer discussion, maybe a new table. Each request makes sense on its own, and together they can make for a busy few weeks.
So, reviewers: how minor is minor?
@infodocket.bsky.social"Equity in Open #Science: Case Studies of Open Science Infrastructures and Open Peer Review"
(New Report From @ec.europa.eu)
@ezequielfk.bsky.social4/ While we debate whether humans belong in the cycle, and where (human-in-the-loop), AI remains the constant: it's always in the loop.
Prompted by this piece in Accountability in Research 👇
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....
@reviewerone.bsky.socialWhat do you always look for before submitting your report?
Join the #ReviewerCommunity to compare how other reviewers approach the final check before submitting a report.
#PeerReview #AcademicSky #AcademicChatter #ReviewerTips #ReviewerSupport
@proofreaderpro.bsky.socialHow to Use AI for a PRISMA-Compliant Systematic Review
proofreaderpro.ai/blog/ai-prisma-systematic-review
#Thesis #GradStudent #PeerReview
@textpulse.bsky.social
@aging-us.bsky.social🎥 The Longevity & Aging Series brings Aging #researchers together to talk about their #longevity and #aging papers.
Watch the latest #episodes ⬇️
https://www.aging-us.com/longevity
#longevityandaging #openaccess #peerreview #interviews #videos #authors
@onscientia.bsky.socialAre you a researcher or academic in Business, Law, or Health? 🌍
Join OnScientia’s international peer reviewer community and help uphold rigorous, scientifically sound research. 🎓📚
@referenceverify.comUse professional phrasing like "We agree with the reviewer that..." or "While we appreciate the suggestion, we chose to..." followed by a clear rationale. View the response letter as a scientific collaboration rather than a conflict. #PeerReview #AcademicWriting
@xavierlasauca.bsky.socialNow is the Time for AI in Peer Review, and Publishing Policies Need to Recognize This, via @scholarlykitchen.bsky.social
@reviewerone.bsky.social#PeerReviewWeek raised a lot of useful questions this year, but which one should the community keep pushing forward?
Reviewer support, recognition, capacity, technology, speed, or global participation?
Which matters most to you right now?
@reviewerone.bsky.social#PeerReviewTip: Subgroup findings need a little extra caution.
Check whether the analysis was pre-specified, whether the subgroups were large enough to support the claim, and whether the conclusion is more certain than the data allows.
Save this for your next review.
@dorassessment.bsky.socialDORA & @prereview.bsky.social invite you to join a roundtable discussion exploring recognizing peer-review contributions! Register today to join the conversation, and share your experiences and ideas
🗓️ 7 Oct 2pm to 3:30pm UTC
🔗 Register: tr.ee/roundtable
@prereview.bsky.socialToday our 2026 PREreview Champions interview series comes to an end.
Read about Daniel's highlights from the program, and his reflections from creating opportunities for African students and ECRs to take part in #PeerReview. What resonated with you the most?
@doccrenau.bsky.social@reviewerone.bsky.socialReviewers do not need to rewrite the manuscript to make a review useful.
Focus on what needs attention, why it matters, and what the authors should reconsider or clarify. Detailed rewriting can blur the line between evaluation and authorship.
@paulguinnessy.bsky.socialSome academic journals seem to be outsourcing their #PeerReview process to third-party firms that pay reviewers for their work, according to a new study that looked at job ads and interviewed candidates. Most interviewees reported receiving payments of around US$35–45 per review #ScholarlyPublishing
@reviewerone.bsky.socialA repeatable review framework can help you stay focused across different manuscripts. Start with contribution and validity, then move through interpretation, transparency, and actionable feedback.
Practice reviewing with ReviewerOne: buff.ly/8gQMTKO
@fosborne.bsky.socialFirst results from our UKRI metascience project: one of the first studies of LLM grant scoring, using anonymised data within UKRI's secure environment. Insights for AI-assisted grant review. More to follow! arxiv.org/abs/2609.25327 #Metascience #PeerReview
@divali.bsky.social📢 Online Seminar: Publishing with LEIZA Journal of Archaeology
Thinking about submitting your work to LJA?
Join us to learn how your work might find a place in the journal!
Register: www.leiza.de/forschung/pu...
#WorldArchaeology #ArchaeologicalPublishing #PeerReview #DiamondOpenAccess #LEIZA
