Everything Hertz

117: How we peer-review papers

Informações:

Sinopsis

Dan and James choose a preprint and walk through how they would peer-review it. James also provides an update on his recent proposal that scientists should be paid for performing peer reviews for journals published by for-profit companies Specific links and topics: An update on the 450 movement (https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-450-movement-1f86132a29bd), which proposes that scientists should be paid for performing peer reviews for journals published by for-profit companies You should follow Overly Honest Editor (https://twitter.com/Edit0r_At_Large) on Twitter The Volkswagen fellowships (https://www.volkswagenstiftung.de/en/funding/our-funding-portfolio-at-a-glance/freigeist-fellowships) Emma Mills (http://www.research.lancs.ac.uk/portal/en/people/emma-mills(edc1db6a-ca34-4086-b16f-95dd24534887).html), from Lancaster University, asks us how we review papers We review this paper: "Direct perception of other people’s heart rate (https://psyarxiv.com/7f9pq)" The tweet from Maarten van Smeeden (https://twit