(not as thoroughly though)

I feel like I should get in here and say that yes indeed, most RoB tools do not do this, but yes our forthcoming one will, and in no small part due to Jack making everyone aware of this (also, in no small part to our contributors also being aware, b/c they are bad-asses also)

Boy do we overcomplicate interventions for improving journal decision-making, IMO. We basically know how peer-review and editorial decision-making works, we don't need to muck about with weird decision-point interventions.

But why make it random, rather than making it a policy? Random publication is just silly, but reasoned publication based on a policy of publication if reviews are split and the issues are discussed in the paper is just ... sensible?

This is what the kids call a deep cut.

Stacked bar or a Sankey if you're fancy

To hell with all of these suggestions, just read Children of Time already.

Unless you have already read Children of Time.

so Tories being depressing culture war tossers is not news, but this is a new way of being depressing about doing it.

huh, it says here the pictures on banknotes are thematic and changed every 10 years or so. Winston has been on the fiver since 2016 (I thought he'd been there forever, but it was Elizabeth Fry up to then). 60% of 44k people said they would like nature as the next theme. I did not know these things.

well yeah but in fairness they said it's a preclinical study so what else did you want from them

Not gonna lie, I came here to dunk on ARRIVE because I think it is a poor standard (with apologies, no offence meant), but then I saw the template you posted which is EXCELLENT (it addresses pretty much every beef I have with ARRIVE, in fact)

Toad-In-The-Hole Recipe • 4★ • 50 min This recipe is by Nigella Lawson and takes 50 minutes. Tell us what you think of it at The New York Times - Dining - Food.

Discharging my duty to the public good, here is a link. cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1020...

I love COS, but it's a hell of a lot easier to post data on Zenodo.

I agree that we need to be sensible about it. A judgement about there being "no other place" is as subjective as a reasonable GE submission threshold. The bad part, IMO, is the firing off of invitations to any old random to inflate the number of SIs overall, not the threshold in the invite.

UPDATE: The journal we sent the paper to, with our assets table, bounced the paper for being too unconventional in its approach to presenting supplemental materials. 🤦

2/2 25% is a reasonable general threshold, I think. And as a Guest Editor, you can set the policy for publishing your own pieces - and they make clear it is not "self-publishing" because the Guest Editors are not deciding on their own papers. So I would not view this as predatory, not really.

I wouldn't interpret it that way. If the publisher is expecting 8-10 articles in the SI, and there are two or three Guest Editors, then they are just saying this is not an opportunity to dump a load of your own stuff in the literature, and by the way you won't be editing it yourself anyway. 1/2

I mean, what is the appropriate reaction here?

I'm sorry, but "Hitler Lewis"? It only gets better when you discover one of his main co-authors is Innocent Benjamin.

cen.acs.org/research-int...

the brutality

gameboy?

oh you mean an "expression of concern" rather than an expression of concern, gotcha! 👍👍

Doesn't the EoC cover the situation where a paper is being investigated but we don't know for sure whether to retract it or not? I am sure it is abused to the point of uselessness but the principle seems reasonable, at least to naive old me.

Well, that explains why it melted my brain when I was trying to understand it.

How to think about AI and not have an existential crisis It is a tool, not a replacement.

Very nice essay from your man @iandunt.bsky.social on how to think about AI. It is a tool. (Could we expand on the concept of tools? I am not sure people know how to think about tools either: know your task, and judge the tool against how it performs that task.) iandunt.substack.com/p/how-to-thi...

Ribbit.

IIRC, the editor was getting mixed messages across the reviewers and didn't have the competence in the submission type to recognise the issues for themselves, so I get it (but I don't excuse it). As an editor myself, I won't necessarily reject a manuscript based on Reviewer 2.

If I had read the whole thread before posting, I would see this is a variant on your story. Sigh.

I reviewed a paper once, recommended straight rejection, was invited to review the revisions, recommended rejection again, was invited to review the revisions, and was like nope I'm done here. Six months later, I got invited by a different journal to review the same paper. :D

<catching up on some unread email> oh no wait, I am already on that listserv