On the peer review

Last week thoughts on the academy games:
In so called blind manuscript review -where the reviewers do not know the name of the authors-, it is becoming hard to be blind. Since the experts know each other (they are peers at the end of the day) and follow their previous meeting abstracts, they know who the potential authors of the manuscript are.
For the sake of objectivity and unbiased attitude, I prefer the reviewer comments to be publicly available when the manuscript is published. This will prevent some reviewers bullying their colleagues anonymously.
I am also pro the opinion of sharing the reviewer comments among journals to decrease the workload of editors and reviewers. This will also prevent the reviewers and editors rejecting a manuscript in one journal but accepting in another.

abstract time

#USCAP #abstract preperation feelings 🥺 🤯😱😰

1) Folks in #rstats and #statistics community are talking about how to prepare or wrangle data for analysis. 😎 🤨🤔That is not the root cause.🧐 🔍We should focus on "how to enter data". ⌨️

2) Long time ago I have prepared a talk on this with an example on #pathology #research , that talk was cancelled (weird times). 🥳🤪🥴

3) I think I should present it as a video from social media.🤩

4) I should stop #procrastinating and focus on project.😳🤗