How to choose a peer review partner: Top 5 things to look for

Even experienced editors struggle to recall 50 names on the spot. The problem isn't that editors don't know their field—it's that human memory works differently under pressure. But show them intelligently ranked candidates? Instant recognition. One client saw reviewer mismatches drop from 8% to 2%. 👉 Explore the psychology behind human-AI collaboration in peer review—link in comments. How does instant access vs. recall work in your editorial processes?

For every editor, the path to journal indexing can often feel uncertain — requirements evolve, priorities shift, and expectations grow. That’s why conversations like this are so valuable. This upcoming webinar with Iga Serafin (Paradigm) offers practical and transparent insights into what truly matters when preparing a journal for Scopus or Web of Science. Understanding how editorial policies, peer review ethics, and publication quality align with global indexing standards is essential for sustainable journal growth. Highly recommended for editors, publishers, and researchers committed to excellence and integrity in scholarly publishing. #Indexing #ScholarlyPublishing #ResearchIntegrity #ACSE #Paradigm #EditorsCafe #OpenScience

Shut Up and Grow Rich: The Peer Review Rubber Stamp By Vincent Cook Let’s call it what it is. Peer review isn’t science. Not always. In too many fields, it’s a mercenary gatekeeper: Protecting funding. Protecting careers. Protecting narratives. Original ideas? Inconvenient data? Challenging orthodoxy? Better hope you like silence. The system rewards repetition, not truth. The metrics are citations, not accuracy. “Shut up and grow rich” isn’t a joke—it’s the career advice everyone actually follows. If you want real rigor, it doesn’t live in the journals. It lives in raw data, repeatable methods, and independent verification. Anything else is narrative curated to survive the peer‑review gauntlet. Truth shouldn’t be a commodity. But right now, it is. #PeerReview #SciencePolitics #FundingGatekeepers #NarrativeControl #DataNotHype #IndependentResearch #FollowTheEvidence

🚨 During the pandemic, science moved faster than ever — but did speed mean sloppiness? A new MIRROR summary from Science Integrity Alliance breaks down a study tracking how early COVID-19 preprints changed after expert review. The results? 🧠 ✅ 4 in 5 preprints kept their core conclusions. ⚙️ Data stayed mostly the same — but some abstracts shifted tone. 🔍 Transparency and data sharing still lagged behind. Science under pressure mostly held firm — but the study reminds us that open, transparent review is key to fighting misinformation and building public trust. 🎥 Watch the full 6-minute video summary here: https://lnkd.in/ey8W8Ttb #OpenScience #MIRROR #ResearchIntegrity #ScienceCommunication

Myth: Qualitative methods have no place in ABA 💥 BUSTED 💥 As part of a forthcoming special issue in BAP, Elizabeth Kelly, PhD and I address some common myths that might prevent behavior analysts from consuming and/or conducting qualitative research. Although no explosions were involved, I think Adam and Jamie would still be impressed. Shout out to Beth for being an amazing co-author (or co-conspirator, depending on your point of view)! Link below in comments - DM me if you would like a copy.

The Complexities of Accurately Communicating Science https://bit.ly/4qdHJiS Key takeaways: Connect the human impact. Always follow regulatory rules and approved claims supported by data. Know your audiences and what matters to them

The Complexities of Accurately Communicating Science https://bit.ly/4qdHJiS Key takeaways: Connect the human impact. Always follow regulatory rules and approved claims supported by data. Know your audiences and what matters to them

Three rounds of peer review, the same substantial flaws, and the paper still got published. I was recently asked to review a manuscript in my area of expertise. It lacked critical validation of the model system, had confounding variables clouding interpretation, and applied statistical tests that didn’t meet assumptions. The conclusions were overstated, full of buzzwords like “comprehensive,” “groundbreaking,” and “unprecedented.” I recommended rejection. The other peer reviewer raised similar concerns, but came to the conclusion that the paper could be salvaged, recommending "major revision." A few weeks later, the paper came back to me with minimal changes. I recommended rejection again, while the other reviewer (confusingly) signed off on the "changes." The paper came back a third time, at which point I declined to review, because my feedback was not being considered. A few weeks later, the manuscript was accepted, with the final published version hardly addressing any of the original deficiencies. What’s the point of this process if substantive critiques can be ignored? Is it about scientific rigor, or just a formality before collecting massive publication fees? For-profit publishing already relies on free labor from scientists volunteering their time. If major concerns aren’t even considered, the system is not safeguarding scientific quality as intended. We all want research to be trusted. That depends on peer review actually meaning something. I’d be interested to hear from others. How do we improve thoughtful engagement between reviewers, authors, and editors?

Same story over and over again. The only real solution is for authors to recognize that success in science is not just about publishing—it’s about publishing high-quality, rigorously vetted research. I don’t like rejections either, but they are an essential part of doing science. Reviewers are not there to punish us; their role is to help improve our work. After a thorough and critical review, I can be confident that the final publication has undergone a rigorous evaluation and that we are publishing a stronger, more refined paper than the original submission.

51. Toni raised her hand, “One final thought we seek: 52. How can science, media, and writing speak 53. To form a society more wise and strong, 54. Where knowledge is embraced, and error shunned?” 55. Sam spoke first, “Dialogue must bridge the space 56. Between expert minds and the public’s place. 57. Treat listeners as capable of thought, 58. Complexity explained, yet clearly taught.” 59. Rosey added, “Ethics must remain our guide, 60. Transparency and care walk by our side. 61. Science serves humanity, not selfish claim, 62. Truth and prudence held as one in aim.” 63. Jose concluded, “Storytelling and fact, 64. Combined with clarity, form the pact. 65. Knowledge gains its power only when 66. The public understands, and acts again.” 67. Toni’s voice rang out, concluding with grace: 68. “Thanks to our voices, writers, and this space. 69. Keep questioning, stay curious, seek the light, 70. For science thrives when shared with minds polite.” 71. And so the broadcast ended, voices low, 72. But echoes of their wisdom still did grow. 73. Across the lands, the listeners understood: 74. That knowledge, ethics, and clarity bring good.