Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust From: Les Bernstein <lbernstein@xxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 10:43:09 -0400--------------befOAsE4K0c0TgOeaBYZKuux Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by edgeum3.it.mcgill.ca id 34VEhhF3121652 "[Peer review]only became widespread in the 1960s and 1970s, and it=20 wasn't driven by a need for more rigour but to stem the tide of an=20 overwhelming number of submissions brought about by the proliferation of=20 journals." Perhaps I missed it and, if so, that's my error, but I found nothing in=20 the linked article to support that statement. This article=20 <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/the-birth-of-mo= dern-peer-review/>,=20 on the history of peer review, dates its inception to the year 1731.=20 This article=20 <https://mitcommlab.mit.edu/broad/commkit/peer-review-a-historical-perspe= ctive/>=20 suggests an even earlier date. This article=20 <https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/09/26/the-rise-of-peer-review-m= elinda-baldwin-on-the-history-of-refereeing-at-scientific-journals-and-fu= nding-bodies/>=20 provides an interesting historical perspective. Interestingly, while=20 they all acknowledge the rise and instantiation of modern peer-review in=20 the 1970s, not a single one supports Dan's cynical account of its origins. As I see it, the utility of peer-review, as a process, is orthogonal to=20 the predatory, greedy, marketing, and profiteering that has become=20 commonplace among many publishers.=C2=A0 On that score, I agree with Dan.= =C2=A0=20 The process of peer-review, itself, could, in theory, be implemented in=20 the absence of publishers. The origins of a practice are often foreign and irrelevant to how that=20 practice functions in modern-day society.=C2=A0 Even if one were to prese= nt=20 evidence consistent with Dan's cynical description of the origins of=20 peer-review, that would not be justification to jettison the practice.=C2= =A0=20 I note that standardized college-admission tests were developed=20 originally to prevent Jews from gaining admission to Harvard.=C2=A0 Besid= e=20 the fact that the ploy was a failure, that certainly isn't how=20 standardized tests have been used for decades.=C2=A0 Arguments about the=20 equity of standardized tests aside, I don't think that there's a sane=20 argument to suggest that their purpose today is to actively exclude any=20 particular group or set of groups.=C2=A0 No, I will not go down the rabbi= t=20 hole of the utility of standardized testing. We can and should do better with regard to peer-review and the=20 "marketization" of science.=C2=A0 For all of its faults, at least for the= =20 journals in which I've chosen to publish, I have found peer-review to be=20 of substantial value from the point of view of an author, a reader, and=20 an editor. Les On 5/30/2023 6:04 AM, Goodman, Daniel F M wrote: > *** Attention: This is an external email. Use caution responding,=20 > opening attachments or clicking on links. *** > Thanks Etienne for your supportive message! > > Since the issue of age and wisdom keeps coming up, I think it might be=20 > worth my saying that the older and more experienced I get (I hesitate=20 > to say wiser), the more I question the way we do things now, not the=20 > less. As a young researcher I just accepted that this is how things=20 > have always been and so it was surely right. > > It was quite a shock to actually start reading about the origins of=20 > the modern form of peer review (systematic review and revisions as a=20 > precondition for publication), and this history is perhaps not widely=20 > enough known. It wasn't used for the majority of science for the=20 > majority of its history. It only became widespread in the 1960s and=20 > 1970s, and it wasn't driven by a need for more rigour but to stem the=20 > tide of an overwhelming number of submissions brought about by the=20 > proliferation of journals. This in turn was a conscious commercial=20 > tactic of the early pioneers in for profit publishing. It should be a=20 > mark of shame for science that we let these profiteers distort the=20 > scientific process for their enrichment, and that we not only continue=20 > to do so but actively eulogise in favour of this system. > > That said, thanks in part to the continued efforts of these commercial=20 > publishers and willing support from governments, we do have a=20 > marketised system of science and there are strong incentives to game=20 > the system with low quality papers. So we do need a way to keep that=20 > in check. My experience and the evidence shows that the current form=20 > of peer review is not delivering. It misses major errors and is=20 > systematically biased. It also impedes efforts to do better.=20 > Commercial journals (and many but not all society journals) have no=20 > incentive to do things that would improve the system like surfacing=20 > post publication peer reviews from sites like PubPeer. It would=20 > undermine their business model if we all realised that this free=20 > service was better than the incredibly expensive and profitable=20 > service they are offering. > > Anyway, as a final thought I want to thank science for being the only=20 > place now where (in my 40s) I get called youthfully naive. It's a rare=20 > treat, as it's been a long time now since the last time i was asked=20 > for id when buying alcohol. > > In case you're interested in reading more about how modern peer review=20 > and journals came to be, I highly recommend this article as a start. > > https://amp.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-sci= entific-publishing-bad-for-science=20 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://amp.theguardian.com/science/2017/j= un/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science__;!!Cn_UX= _p3!k6vREvRRA04fRb_IMeg9FsFvcLcqT6ohkQwJnLLZWOVWnKCFlR5SLFgBTwAQrAWry5Yo9= -9Wz9lOGxpG0hyovFL1aw$> > > Dan > > --- > This email was written on my phone, please excuse my brevity. > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= - > *From:* Etienne Gaudrain <egaudrain.cam@xxxxxxxx> > *Sent:* Tuesday, 30 May 2023 05:16 > *To:* AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx > *Subject:* Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust > > Dear Les, Dear List, > > Like Alain, I'm gonna break the rule and talk twice. (As a=20 > parenthesis, I actually don't think it is an unspoken rule of the=20 > Auditory List, but this is just basic etiquette: in a public debate=20 > one has to let other people express themselves too, and one should not=20 > assume that their word is so much more valuable than anyone else's. As=20 > they say: silence is golden, and I think it's because it gives a=20 > chance for others to talk... So, my apologies for holding the mic a=20 > bit too long.) > > Les, you wrote: > > I submit to not-yet-established researchers that your time would > be much better spent, and your career advanced more rapidly, by > reading the peer-reviewed literature-- especially that authored by > well-established and respected investigators.=C2=A0 (No, that does = not > mean that "new investigators" cannot or do not publish spectacular > work). > > > Although I agree that there is enormous wisdom in past work, I think=20 > your advice is rather ill-guided. Ironically, this is how social media=20 > works: orators are judged by their clout more than by the merit of=20 > what they say. I think we can all agree that, in the process of=20 > producing scientific knowledge, we want to avoid that as much as possib= le. > > In fact, my experience, as a reader and as a reviewer (or as a=20 > conference organiser), is that some "well-established and respected=20 > investigators" =E2=80=94 luckily not all of them, but often the most vo= cal=20 > ones =E2=80=94 have a tendency to get a bit full of themselves and get = away=20 > with publishing sub-quality material, thanks to their name and reputati= on. > > When I am a reviewer, I can of course act on it and recommend=20 > rejection or heavy correction. Let's take the current discussion as an=20 > example*: Dan, to contribute to the debate, gave constructed arguments=20 > supported by references reporting carefully constructed studies. On=20 > the other side, opposing these arguments, Les, you gave mostly your=20 > opinions and left the onus of finding evidence supporting or=20 > disproving your views on Dan and other members of the list. Of course=20 > Dan is no spring chicken, but he has yet to reach your stature (and so=20 > am I). As a reviewer, I might recommend rejecting your arguments as=20 > unfounded, but (1) it will take some courage to go against a=20 > well-established figure of our field, and (2) there is no guarantee=20 > the editor themselves will not side with the better-established=20 > author, either because they know them personally better, or because=20 > they don't want to alienate them. The consequence in our public debate=20 > is that while people may still think that Dan made good points, they=20 > might eventually side with you, either because they imagine that your=20 > opinion is based on some unspoken wisdom, or simply because this is=20 > safer to go along with the bigger player. > > You might say that this, in itself, is a very strong argument for=20 > peer-review, and I entirely agree. > > I will add that this is an even stronger argument for not trusting=20 > blindly everything that has been peer-reviewed. And as a corollary, I=20 > would add: especially if this is a well-established author. After all,=20 > "well-established" means you should be able to hold these authors to=20 > higher standards... > > In addition, I also think that this illustrates very well the need for=20 > open reviews. Everybody should be able to stand behind their reviews.=20 > That not only means they should be cordial enough in their tone (as a=20 > prerequisite to communication in general, that also applies to=20 > well-established authors of reviews, for instance), but should also be=20 > well argumented and supported by evidence and references**. This=20 > should traditionally be enforced by editors, but I think they too=20 > rarely do so, perhaps because they already struggle to find reviewers.=20 > I think open reviews would help naturally enforcing good quality and=20 > cordiality, but they also help identifying some manuscript that have=20 > been poorly reviewed. We can debate on whether they should be=20 > anonymous or not, and how much one's reputation would play a role in=20 > this. I think pre-prints and peer-communities can play a crucial role=20 > there. > > Regarding speed, as much as I think that it is, in general, the recipe=20 > for shoddy science, we have to admit that our institutions are=20 > constantly pushing for more production, and more hype***. For the=20 > lucky ones of us who have an established enough position, we may be=20 > able to brush this constraint aside (and I personally try to do so as=20 > much as possible and be as slow as one can... the ISH contributors=20 > will know what I'm talking about...), but others at early stages of=20 > their careers, or those on ever precarious, soft-money positions, may=20 > not have that luxury. I would encourage well-established faculty=20 > member to put their weight behind denouncing and repelling these=20 > policies of precarisation, and constant competition in science, which=20 > directly impact the quality of scientific productions. I have the=20 > feeling that this would do more for the quality of science than saying=20 > "read my book". > > Finally, one should also consider that science has become very=20 > technologically complex and new methods are being constantly=20 > developed. Open and speedy sharing of these methods can benefit=20 > scientific communities and pre-prints can be seen as a good way to=20 > share details about these tools. They are also a good way of informing=20 > others, in details, about what one is working on, which helps with=20 > distributing the research effort more efficiently. In short, while we=20 > used to get away with just posters at conferences, where you would=20 > take a note "ah, they used 45 dB, I see" and that'd be enough to=20 > generate your next experimental paradigm, the complexity of methods=20 > nowadays is such that it cannot possibly be explained in details at a=20 > conference. Having a formal, carefully prepared report available is=20 > very helpful in that sense. In fact, this is not new: Bell's labs, or=20 > KTH have published reports from the 50s an 60s that have gained=20 > notoriety, and citations, despite being unreviewed. > > And with this, I will go back to being silent. > Thanks again for this nice discussion. > Best, > -Etienne > > > * Note that I'm well aware that we're having a public discussion, and=20 > that the rules of engagement are different than when submitting and=20 > reviewing a manuscript, but still think that some elements are=20 > informative as illustration. > ** That seems obvious, but I think everyone has had to deal with these=20 > short, un-argumented reviews, with which the editor decided to side=20 > with, to the bewilderment of the authors... > *** One more ironic point here: impact-factor, which is supposed to=20 > reflect the reputation of a journal, is actually mostly a measure of=20 > speed of citation: it is the number of citations within two years of=20 > publication. No wonder it correlates best with retraction rate. Yet=20 > another case where reputation is actually working against quality... > > > > On Mon, 29 May 2023 at 06:13, Les Bernstein <lbernstein@xxxxxxxx> wrote= : > > I submit to not-yet-established researchers that your time would > be much better spent, and your career advanced more rapidly, by > reading the peer-reviewed literature-- especially that authored by > well-established and respected investigators.=C2=A0 (No, that does = not > mean that "new investigators" cannot or do not publish spectacular > work). > > Les > > On 5/26/2023 10:25 AM, Jonathan Z Simon wrote: >> *** Attention: This is an external email. Use caution responding, >> opening attachments or clicking on links. *** >> I think it=E2=80=99s a tribute to the Auditory List that we=E2=80=99= ve been able >> to hear such diverse perspectives on preprints. All the opinions >> I=E2=80=99ve seen expressed here are based on real-world experienc= e, and >> that really matters.=C2=A0I would argue that this discussion is an >> example of Social Media =E2=80=9Cdone right=E2=80=9D. >> >> To those who see preprints as dangerous: >> Since they exist and will not go away, please give your students >> and young colleagues advice how to best navigate their use. Your >> advice might be that they should simply be ignored, but you may >> also have more nuanced advice about how to use them to positive >> advantage: how they should be read and interpreted appropriately >> (and maybe even when they should be posted, appropriately). >> Nobody wants their students and young colleagues to hobbled in >> today=E2=80=99s academic environment. >> >> To not-yet-established researchers: >> Consider the benefits expressed previously in this chain: >> preprints have the potential to enrich and benefit your academic >> career. >> --When reading a preprint, remember that that it=E2=80=99s likely = a >> submitted-but-not-yet-peer-reviewed article. Feel free to use use >> the authors' ideas and findings to add inspiration to your own >> work (and then cite them accordingly). As a written paper, it >> will very likely get better once it=E2=80=99s been peer reviewed (= logical >> arguments tightened, data analysis improved, wild claims reeled >> in, etc.), but the guts of the paper will likely not change much. >> Don=E2=80=99t get hoodwinked by unsupported claims, but don=E2=80=99= t leave >> innovative, inspirational ideas on the table either. Feel free to >> play with the authors=E2=80=99 Matlab/Python code that they also p= osted >> publicly (and if it=E2=80=99s not yet posted, feel free to email t= he >> authors to politely ask if they=E2=80=99d be willing to share it). >> --When writing a paper, consider posting it as a preprint at the >> same time you submit it to a journal, as a step on the way to it >> becoming a final (peer-reviewed, formally published) article. If >> your ultimate goal is share your great ideas with the world at >> large, preprints can give you an extra lift. Researchers and >> journal clubs that do read preprints can use your ideas and >> findings to push their own work forward. If one of your ideas >> makes into one of their papers, your paper can be cited, and >> that=E2=80=99s good too, both as a feeling and for your career. Al= so, >> check out the evidence Dan Goodman provided below regarding the >> substantial boost in citations your published paper may get from >> having been first released as a preprint. Additionally, consider >> the benefit of having a preprint when you=E2=80=99re writing a gra= nt. If >> you write about the topic in a grant submission it allows >> reviewers to distinguish between =E2=80=9Cwork in progress that I=E2= =80=99m in >> the middle or writing up=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Chere=E2=80=99s my p= aper currently under >> review and you can also read it if you=E2=80=99d like=E2=80=9D. So= me reviewers >> may not care about the difference, but there are plenty that do: >> give the reviewers who want to push for your grant some extra >> ammunition. >> >> My two cents, >> Jonathan >> >> >>> On May 26, 2023, at 2:50 AM, Adam Weisser >>> <adam_weisser@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Thank you Matt for bringing up this topic and for everybody who >>> articulated their opinions. This is a very interesting debate, >>> which I find particularly enlightening, given that I am one of >>> those people that has chosen to park their manuscript in arXiv >>> in the foreseeable future. >>> >>> If I can try to summarize the gist of the opinions, then it >>> seems that every researcher tends to come up with a set of >>> heuristics to try and determine whether a particular publication >>> is worth their time and effort without actually reading it. >>> These include the reputation of the publication platform, but >>> are additionally influenced greatly by the authors' perceived >>> reputation, their affiliation(s), the level of presentation >>> (aesthetics, language, structure, bibliography, etc.), the type >>> and extent of the claims made, their novelty, their topicality, >>> and for older papers, the number of citations they received. We >>> would like to think that all these give a pretty good idea of >>> whether a paper is worthy even before reading the abstract. Just >>> like any other endeavor, a judgment error here can be a false >>> negative - ignoring a good paper, which could have advanced >>> other results and ideas, and could have saved repeating work, or >>> realizing that what you have been working on had been already >>> done by somebody else. The judgment error here can also be a >>> false positive - giving undeserved attention to an unworthy >>> paper, which may result in waste of time, money, and escalate to >>> wrongly citing it and basing further false claims upon it - a >>> potential embarrassment. To some, there is a pedagogical point >>> to make here, since the risk in a false positive is so high that >>> it is also critical to warn others against it. >>> >>> I'd like to offer another perspective about the role and >>> usefulness of arXiv, as I have personally experienced it, which >>> goes beyond its preprint repository function. As it relates to a >>> specific work, it may not be easily generalizable, although I >>> think it highlights the shades of grey involved in the process >>> of doing different forms of science. >>> >>> First, publishing on arXiv has liberated me from adhering to the >>> standard article format and allowed for keeping a more organic >>> structure that made better sense for the writing and topic - >>> neither a book nor an article, a hybrid between theory and >>> experiment, something that does not clearly belong in any >>> specific journal. >>> >>> Second, it has allowed for some relaxation of the usual >>> cautiousness of completely refraining from any speculation. >>> While this may be an obvious red flag for some readers, I think >>> it's fair play as long as the act of speculation is clearly >>> stated and the ensuing logical flow is kept in check. >>> >>> Third, it has made the question of who can review the material >>> moot. Every reader is a reviewer in their own right and must be >>> able to trust their own judgment. Producing a document that may >>> not be reviewable in the traditional sense because of its length >>> and=C2=A0interdisciplinarity has very limited options for >>> publication. One such option is to publish it as a book or a >>> thesis, if suitable reviewers can be found. Many walls can be >>> hit here. Another option is to break it down to multiple papers >>> and send them to different journals, which would take many years >>> and hoops to jump (a good example is de Boer's "Auditory >>> physics" trilogy from 1980, 1984 and 1991, although I don't know >>> the back story of this series). The benefit in going through >>> this usual process may be the increase in trust in the relevance >>> and correctness of the material that the readers should have, >>> while they can also enjoy a better presentation (fewer errors, >>> better focus, etc.). The cost of adhering to traditional format >>> would be many years of delay and loss of precision in the >>> message, as I envision and would like to communicate. It may >>> also be the loss of precedence if someone else has come up with >>> similar ideas at the same time - not at all an uncommon thing in >>> the history of science (e.g., Darwin and Wallace). >>> >>> The alternative was to use arXiv for publication (it could have >>> been another repository). Critically, it provides an agreed upon >>> stamp of authorship with a publication date. At the very least, >>> it has non-zero reputation in several scientific fields, there >>> is very rudimentary control by its staff of what goes into it, >>> initial author affiliation (or reference by affiliated people) >>> is required, and it allows for version updates. More >>> importantly, it relies on trust in the judgment of the few that >>> would be willing to invest time in reading the manuscript, so >>> they can decide for themselves whether it is a worthwhile piece, >>> or one that should have never seen the light of day and be >>> forgotten. I believe it is a more adult way to treat the >>> readers, who should be capable to assess the quality of the work >>> after decades of education, without being prescribed a nominal >>> map of where "bad science" necessarily lies that must be avoided >>> at all costs. >>> >>> Whichever strategy of reading and publishing is embraced, there >>> is going to be no one-rule-fits-all here, and every scholar has >>> to be comfortable with their own choices, obviously. All have >>> clear merits and none is completely infallible. >>> >>> Best, >>> Adam. >>> >>> On Thu, May 25, 2023, at 9:34 PM, Ole C Bialas wrote: >>>> Thank you Dan, Alain and everyone else for this important >>>> debate. I >>>> think its essential that we, as a field, have a constructive >>>> debate >>>> about publishing models because it feels like the current model = of >>>> for-profit publishing is unsustainable and will hopefully be >>>> replaced by >>>> something better. >>>> >>>> I agree with most of Dan's arguments in defense of preprints >>>> although I >>>> think that the boost in speed and citations is the weakest just >>>> because >>>> I think there is usually no inherent time-pressure to most of ou= r >>>> research - after all, it's not like we are developing vaccines >>>> for a >>>> global pandemic or something. >>>> >>>> More importantly, preprints provide open access for readers and >>>> authors >>>> and removes gatekeepers. The latter may allow the publishing of >>>> research >>>> that goes against widely accepted standards in style, design, >>>> methodology and so on but this kind of heterodoxy is something I >>>> personally welcome. Of course, I value the critique of experts >>>> but in >>>> the current system I don't really get this critique. Instead, I >>>> just get >>>> the information that someone, who is probably and expert on the >>>> matter >>>> and may or may not have spent a lot of time on this particular >>>> paper, >>>> saw it fit for publication. >>>> >>>> I am not convinced by Alain's argument that the current >>>> peer-review >>>> process is a safeguard against bad science. As Dan suggested, >>>> there is a >>>> good amount of research showing the ineffectiveness of the curre= nt >>>> review system. There may even be the danger that certain >>>> publications >>>> are taken at face value, instead of being assessed critically, >>>> just >>>> because they appeared in a reputable journal. Thus, peer-review >>>> may >>>> provide a false sense of security, much like the use of helmets = in >>>> American Football caused an increase in traumatic brain injury >>>> because >>>> it lead players to charge head first into each other. >>>> >>>> The only time I noticed a truly bad effect of preprints was >>>> during the >>>> pandemic, when media outlets picked up on flawed corona related >>>> research >>>> ( masks don't work etc.) and then reported it as facts without >>>> understanding or explaining what a preprint is. >>>> >>>> I think that it would be useful to have a review process that >>>> is open, >>>> transparent and detached from publishing, like movie reviews >>>> written on >>>> pages such as imdb. In this way, scientist could not only >>>> access and >>>> cite the research itself but also critical reviews of that >>>> research. >>>> This would also allow young scientists such as myself to get mor= e >>>> insight into the secretive world of academic publishing. Of cour= se >>>> coming up with a good architecture that sets the right >>>> incentives for >>>> such a system is no trivial task but I don't see clinging to >>>> the status >>>> quo of publishing as a viable option on the long run. >>>> >>>> Again, thank you all for adding to this debate! >>>> All the best, >>>> Ole >>>> >>>> >>>> Am 25.05.2023 11:51 schrieb Goodman, Daniel F M: >>>> > Alain, >>>> > >>>> > You write about preprints as if they're some new thing with >>>> potentially >>>> > dangerous unknowable consequences, but they've been around >>>> and used >>>> > extensively (particularly in maths and physics) for over 30 >>>> years at >>>> > this point (arXiv was founded in 1991). Most major funders >>>> and journals >>>> > recognise preprints, probably the majority of funders now >>>> have open >>>> > access requirements that can be fulfilled with preprints, and >>>> a few are >>>> > even mandating their use. It's actually not much younger than = the >>>> > widespread use of peer review, which didn't become a de facto >>>> standard >>>> > until the 1960s-1970s (Nature didn't use it until 1973 for >>>> example). >>>> > >>>> > When you say you're not convinced by arguments about speed or >>>> number of >>>> > citations, I guess you mean about the net benefits not about >>>> the facts? >>>> > Because the data is really start: papers in biology which >>>> originally >>>> > appeared as preprints get 36% more citations >>>> > (https://elifesciences.org/articles/52646 >>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elifesciences.org/articles/= 52646__;!!Cn_UX_p3!gAMy-OqskuNw4vfnAPBgUX6cIPtOg5p7k_cv1W4gXOocOWkRl63Qzf= x4lJTGQRWPyJH-PKeOd7rMFkEkGw$>) >>>> and the advantage is >>>> > immediate and long lasting >>>> > >>>> (https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news-blog/preprints-boost-a= rticle-citations-and-mentions >>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.nature.com/nature-index= /news-blog/preprints-boost-article-citations-and-mentions__;!!Cn_UX_p3!gA= My-OqskuNw4vfnAPBgUX6cIPtOg5p7k_cv1W4gXOocOWkRl63Qzfx4lJTGQRWPyJH-PKeOd7o= u-nQNDA$>). >>>> > >>>> > To make the argument clearer, let's break it down into the >>>> different >>>> > roles that preprints can have. >>>> > >>>> > The first role is what preprints can do in the period >>>> following the >>>> > publication of a paper in a journal. In this case, posting a >>>> preprint >>>> > of >>>> > a paper fulfills open access requirements and makes it >>>> possible for the >>>> > whole world to read your paper, including the general public, >>>> and >>>> > people >>>> > at less wealthy universities and countries that cannot afford = the >>>> > journal subscription. I cannot see any coherent argument >>>> against this. >>>> > It's a disgrace that the public pays for science but is not >>>> able to >>>> > access the results of the work they paid for, and it is only a >>>> > hindrance >>>> > to scientific progress to gate access to knowledge. >>>> > >>>> > The second role is what preprints can do in the time between t= he >>>> > journal >>>> > accepting the paper and making it available. This is purely >>>> about speed >>>> > of publication but I can't see any reason why you wouldn't >>>> want this >>>> > speed? I just went to the most recent issue of JASA and >>>> looked at the >>>> > first three papers as a rough sample, and this delay was 3 >>>> weeks, 3.5 >>>> > weeks and 6.5 weeks. It's not years, but might make the >>>> difference in >>>> > someone's job or grant application. >>>> > >>>> > The third role is where I guess you mostly disagree Alain, >>>> the time >>>> > period between publishing the preprint and journal >>>> acceptance. But I >>>> > don't really see any conflict here. If you don't want to read >>>> preprints >>>> > and prefer to wait then just don't read them. But they will >>>> have value >>>> > for other readers (like me) who accept the limitations, and >>>> they have >>>> > great value for the authors (36% more citations for example). = For >>>> > reference, for my sample of JASA papers above, the times from >>>> first >>>> > submission to journal publication were 22 weeks, 27 weeks, >>>> and 38 >>>> > weeks. >>>> > >>>> > I would dispute the strength of the quality control you >>>> mention though. >>>> > A study of peer review at the BMJ with deliberate major and >>>> minor >>>> > errors >>>> > found that on average peer reviewers picked up on 2.6 to 3 of >>>> 9 major >>>> > errors deliberately introduced >>>> > (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2586872/ >>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar= ticles/PMC2586872/__;!!Cn_UX_p3!gAMy-OqskuNw4vfnAPBgUX6cIPtOg5p7k_cv1W4gX= OocOWkRl63Qzfx4lJTGQRWPyJH-PKeOd7p4ulOXTQ$>). >>>> That's some >>>> > sort of quality control, but not enough to mean that you can >>>> > uncritically read peer reviewed papers. >>>> > >>>> > And on the other hand, there is also a downside to only >>>> reading peer >>>> > reviewed work in that you are subject to editorial and >>>> reviewer biases. >>>> > A PNAS study found that a paper submitted with a Nobel prize >>>> winner as >>>> > author was recommended for acceptance by 20% of reviewers, >>>> but the very >>>> > same paper with an unknown student as author was only >>>> recommended for >>>> > acceptance 2% of the time >>>> > (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2205779119 >>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pn= as.2205779119__;!!Cn_UX_p3!gAMy-OqskuNw4vfnAPBgUX6cIPtOg5p7k_cv1W4gXOocOW= kRl63Qzfx4lJTGQRWPyJH-PKeOd7pROm8-xg$>). >>>> > >>>> > More controversially perhaps, I think there is a potential >>>> fourth role >>>> > for preprints that are never submitted to a journal. This is >>>> very >>>> > common >>>> > in maths, physics and computer science and works well there. >>>> I think it >>>> > would work even better when combined with a post-publication >>>> peer >>>> > review >>>> > platform that made reviews open, prominently displayed with an >>>> > at-a-glance summary, and easily accessible. But that's an >>>> argument for >>>> > another day! >>>> > >>>> > Dan >>>> > >>>> > ------ Original Message ------ >>>> > From "Alain de Cheveigne" <alain.de.cheveigne@xxxxxxxx> >>>> > To "Goodman, Daniel F M" <d.goodman@xxxxxxxx> >>>> > Cc "AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx" <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx> >>>> > Date 25/05/2023 09:01:43 >>>> > Subject Re: arXiv web of trust >>>> > >>>> >> Dan, all, >>>> >> >>>> >> I'm not convinced by arguments about speed of 'publication', >>>> number of >>>> >> citations, or algorithmic suggestions. Think 'fake news' and >>>> the >>>> >> impact of recommendation algorithms on the quality of >>>> information, >>>> >> minds, and the state of the world. >>>> >> >>>> >> The review process can be seen as quality control. A product >>>> maker >>>> >> that eliminates that phase can deliver them faster, >>>> introduce jazzier >>>> >> products, make more money, and dominate the market. >>>> Peer-review - like >>>> >> product quality control - doesn't eliminate all flaws, but >>>> it may make >>>> >> them less likely and easier to spot and eliminate. >>>> >> >>>> >> I suspect there is a generational dimension to this debate. >>>> The three >>>> >> of us that argued most strongly in defence of the review >>>> process have >>>> >> (or have had) a well-established career. How could we not >>>> defend the >>>> >> practices that got us there? Someone struggling to gain >>>> recognition, >>>> >> and a job, may be tempted by mechanisms that bypass those >>>> practices. >>>> >> Fair enough, but beware. It might be a bit like tearing down >>>> the walls >>>> >> and ripping up the floor to feed the boiler. >>>> >> >>>> >> The debate may become moot with the introduction of AI-based >>>> tools to >>>> >> assist writing and reviewing. Why not use similar tools to >>>> read the >>>> >> papers too, and understand them, and produce new science (of >>>> possibly >>>> >> better quality)?=C2=A0 This sounds great, except that I don't= see >>>> much room >>>> >> for a human scientist in that loop. So much for your careers. >>>> >> >>>> >> I find the generational issue unnerving, personally. For the >>>> first >>>> >> time in my life, I'm old and the others are new.=C2=A0 It tak= es some >>>> >> getting used to. >>>> >> >>>> >> Alain >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> On 24 May 2023, at 15:42, Goodman, Daniel F M >>>> >>> <d.goodman@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I have no hesitation in calling a preprint a "publication". >>>> There's >>>> >>> no magic in peer review that makes it not count as >>>> published before >>>> >>> this process. Even the word preprint is archaic now given >>>> how many >>>> >>> journals are online only. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Personally, I now primarily read preprints because most of >>>> the work >>>> >>> in the areas I'm interested in appears a year or two >>>> earlier as >>>> >>> preprints than in a journal. It's much more exciting and >>>> progress can >>>> >>> be much faster when there isn't a multi year between doing >>>> work and >>>> >>> seeing how others make use of it. I just had an email from >>>> someone >>>> >>> asking if they could cite a tweet of mine that had inspired >>>> them to >>>> >>> do some work and this sort of thing is great! Why should we >>>> accept >>>> >>> years of delay between each increment of progress? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Of course, reading preprints means you have to cautious. >>>> But, I >>>> >>> always treat papers I read critically whether they've been >>>> through >>>> >>> peer review or not, and I would encourage everyone to do >>>> the same. >>>> >>> Peer review is of very uneven quality, based on >>>> quantitative studies >>>> >>> and based on my own experience as a reviewer reading the oth= er >>>> >>> reviews. Terrible papers with glaring errors get through >>>> peer review. >>>> >>> So I don't think we can uncritically accept the results of >>>> peer >>>> >>> reviewed papers, and in practice most scientists don't. We >>>> criticise >>>> >>> peer reviewed papers all the time. It's this process of >>>> review or >>>> >>> feedback after publication that is the real scientific >>>> process, and >>>> >>> it would be much easier if the reviews were made available >>>> so we >>>> >>> could more easily judge for ourselves. The sooner we move >>>> to a system >>>> >>> of open and transparent post publication peer review like >>>> the systems >>>> >>> Etienne is talking about, the better. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I do agree with Alain's point that there are too many >>>> papers to read >>>> >>> them all, but for me that's not an argument for the >>>> traditional >>>> >>> approach to peer review but for experimenting with different >>>> >>> approaches to recommending papers. Again personally, I find >>>> I have a >>>> >>> higher hit rate with algorithmic suggestions from Semantic >>>> Scholar >>>> >>> and from things I see posted on social media than I do from >>>> going >>>> >>> through journal table of contents (which I still do out of >>>> habit). >>>> >>> >>>> >>> And as a last point to encourage preprints, the evidence >>>> shows that >>>> >>> papers that are first available as a preprint get cited >>>> more overall. >>>> >>> And if that doesn't convince you I don't know what will. =EF= =BF=BD=EF=BF=BD >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Dan >>>> >>> >>>> >>> --- >>>> >>> This email was written on my phone, please excuse my brevity. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> From: Etienne Gaudrain <egaudrain.cam@xxxxxxxx> >>>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, 24 May 2023 10:38 >>>> >>> To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx >>>> >>> Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Thanks for opening this nice debate, Max! >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I side with Brian for the need of serious peer-review, but >>>> I am less >>>> >>> sure how this can be achieved nowadays. Publishers are >>>> increasingly >>>> >>> pressuring reviewers to work fast because their business >>>> model relies >>>> >>> on volume, and there seems to be little cost to publishing >>>> poor >>>> >>> quality papers. With the ever precarisation of research, it >>>> takes a >>>> >>> very strong faith in the ethos of scientific integrity to >>>> remain a >>>> >>> thorough reviewer. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> If we accept that, as a consequence of this pressure, there >>>> are more >>>> >>> flawed papers that pass the review process, it would mean >>>> that we, as >>>> >>> consumers of the literature, should be more cautious when >>>> citing >>>> >>> articles. We should more critically examine what we cite, >>>> and sort of >>>> >>> perform our own review. But of course, that's also very time >>>> >>> consuming... and it is also very inefficient at the scale >>>> of the >>>> >>> community: me *not* citing an article because I found that >>>> it is >>>> >>> potentially flawed will not prevent others from citing it, >>>> and the >>>> >>> effort I will have put in reviewing it will be largely waste= d. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> So I do believe that there is a strong benefit in having >>>> more open >>>> >>> discussions about papers, and in some cases, the fact that >>>> they are >>>> >>> published or not in the traditional sense, may be partially >>>> >>> irrelevant. We definitely don't want to turn the scientific >>>> community >>>> >>> into social media, where a few arbitrary influencers get to >>>> decide >>>> >>> what's worthy and what isn't. But there are now places where >>>> >>> scientific arguments can be shared, and reflections can be >>>> had, >>>> >>> constructively. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> That's what we tried to do for the last edition of the >>>> International >>>> >>> Symposium on Hearing, but hosting the papers as "pre-print" >>>> (for lack >>>> >>> of a better term) freely available on Zenodo >>>> >>> (https://zenodo.org/communities/ish2022/ >>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://zenodo.org/communities/ish2= 022/__;!!Cn_UX_p3!gAMy-OqskuNw4vfnAPBgUX6cIPtOg5p7k_cv1W4gXOocOWkRl63Qzfx= 4lJTGQRWPyJH-PKeOd7pDqTT99Q$>), >>>> and reviews are made >>>> >>> publically available on PubPeer (and more can be added; >>>> here's an >>>> >>> example: >>>> >>> >>>> https://pubpeer.com/publications/B12EF572A02E04659AF006FF9C5C91 >>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://pubpeer.com/publications/B1= 2EF572A02E04659AF006FF9C5C91__;!!Cn_UX_p3!gAMy-OqskuNw4vfnAPBgUX6cIPtOg5p= 7k_cv1W4gXOocOWkRl63Qzfx4lJTGQRWPyJH-PKeOd7of9ZXZUg$>). >>>> >>>> >>> Contributors are still able to publish their articles in the >>>> >>> traditional sense, and hopefully the published version will = be >>>> >>> connected to the ISH version in some form so that users can >>>> view the >>>> >>> history and comments. In others words, there is much >>>> benefit for the >>>> >>> two systems to co-exist (we can get rid of private publisher= s, >>>> >>> though, and switch to decentralized institutional ones). >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Remains the problem raised by Alain: as readers, how do we >>>> deal with >>>> >>> the volume? While publishers have been selling us >>>> "reputation" in the >>>> >>> form of journals in very much overrated ways (such as >>>> impact factors, >>>> >>> and what not), it is true that journals do have a curating >>>> role that >>>> >>> should not be underestimated. This being said, editors do no= t >>>> >>> actively seek authors to steer publications towards a >>>> specific topic >>>> >>> (besides Frontiers' take it all harassment approach). It is >>>> still the >>>> >>> authors that decide to submit to a specific journal or >>>> another. As a >>>> >>> result, following the JASA TOC gives us access to a >>>> semi-random >>>> >>> sample of what's going on in the field. It does offer, >>>> >>> stochastically, some degree of protection against >>>> confirmation bias >>>> >>> in literature search (whereby you only look for papers that >>>> confirm >>>> >>> your idea). I wonder if automatic suggestions of "related >>>> papers" >>>> >>> could achieve something similar in other venues? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Cheers, >>>> >>> -Etienne >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> -- >>>> >>> Etienne Gaudrain, PhD >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Lyon Neuroscience Research Centre / Auditory Cognition and >>>> >>> Psychoacoustics (CAP) >>>> >>> CNRS UMR5292, Inserm U1028, Universit=C3=A9 Lyon 1 >>>> >>> Centre Hospitalier Le Vinatier - B=C3=A2timent 462 - Neuroca= mpus >>>> >>> 95 boulevard Pinel, 69675 Bron Cedex, France >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 10:56, Alain de Cheveigne >>>> >>> <alain.de.cheveigne@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>> Hi Jonathan, all, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Here's a different perspective. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> First of all, the issue of peer review should be >>>> distinguished from >>>> >>> that of publishers shaving the wool off our backs (more belo= w). >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Peer review offers functions that we miss out on in the >>>> preprint >>>> >>> model. Weeding out junk is one, improving papers (and the >>>> ideas in >>>> >>> them) is another. A third is reducing the bulk of things to >>>> read. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> The last might seem counterintuitive: surely, more is >>>> better?=C2=A0 The >>>> >>> thing is, we have limited time and cognitive bandwidth. >>>> Lack of time >>>> >>> is the major obstacle to keeping abreast, and lack of time >>>> of the >>>> >>> potential audience is what prevents our ideas having an >>>> impact. You >>>> >>> painstakingly work to solve a major problem in the field, >>>> write it up >>>> >>> carefully, and no one notices because attention is carried >>>> away by >>>> >>> the tweet cycle. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> The review/journal model helps in several ways. First, by >>>> >>> prioritizing things to read (as an alternative to the >>>> random - or >>>> >>> otherwise biased - selection induced by lack of time).=C2=A0 >>>> Second, by >>>> >>> improving the readability of the papers: more readable >>>> means less >>>> >>> time per paper means more attention for other papers - >>>> including >>>> >>> possibly yours. Third, by organizing - however imperfectly >>>> - the >>>> >>> field. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> For example, you can (or could) keep abreast of a topic in >>>> acoustics >>>> >>> by scanning JASA and a few other journals. With the >>>> preprint/twitter >>>> >>> model the 'field' risks being shattered into micro-fields, >>>> bubbles, >>>> >>> or cliques. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> My experience of the review process is - as everyone's - >>>> mixed.=C2=A0 I >>>> >>> remember intense frustration at the reviewer's dumbness, >>>> and despair >>>> >>> at ever getting published. I also remember what I learned >>>> in the >>>> >>> process.=C2=A0 Almost invariably, my papers were improved by >>>> orders of >>>> >>> magnitude (not just incrementally). >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I also spend a lot of time reviewing. I find it a painful >>>> process, >>>> >>> as it involves reading (I'm a bit dyslexic), and trying to >>>> understand >>>> >>> what is written and - to be helpful to the author - what >>>> the author >>>> >>> had in mind and how he/she could better formulate it to get >>>> the >>>> >>> message across, and avoid wasting the time of - hopefully - >>>> countless >>>> >>> readers. It does involve weeding out some junk too. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Science is not just about making new discoveries or coming >>>> up with >>>> >>> radically new ideas. These are few and far between. Rather, >>>> it's a >>>> >>> slow process of building on other people's ideas, >>>> digesting, tearing >>>> >>> down, clearing the rubble, and building some more. The >>>> review process >>>> >>> makes the edifice more likely to stand. Journals play an >>>> important >>>> >>> role in this accumulation, even if most content is >>>> antiquated and >>>> >>> boring. It's a miracle that some journals have done this ove= r >>>> >>> decades, even centuries. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Which brings back to the issue of money, impact factors, and >>>> >>> careers.=C2=A0 Lots to say about that, mostly depressing, bu= t >>>> mainly >>>> >>> orthogonal from the peer-review issue. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Alain >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> > On 23 May 2023, at 13:54, Jonathan Z Simon <jzsimon@xxxxxxxx= u> >>>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > Matt, >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > In this context I would avoid the term =E2=80=9Cpublishing= =E2=80=9D, >>>> since that >>>> >>> has such a different meaning for so many people, but I >>>> personally do >>>> >>> take advantage of posting preprints on a public server >>>> (like arXiv) >>>> >>> almost every chance I get. >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > Preprints (preprint =3D a fully written paper that is not >>>> (yet) >>>> >>> published) have been useful for many decades, originally in >>>> physics, >>>> >>> as a way of getting one's research results out in a timely >>>> manner. >>>> >>> Other key benefits are that it establishes primacy of the >>>> research >>>> >>> findings, that it is citable in other researchers' papers, >>>> and that >>>> >>> it can be promoted by social media such as this listserve >>>> (more below >>>> >>> on this). But the biggest benefit is typically getting the >>>> paper out >>>> >>> into the world for others to learn from, without having to >>>> wait based >>>> >>> on the whims of publishers and individual reviewers. If >>>> most of your >>>> >>> published papers get accepted eventually, and the most >>>> important >>>> >>> findings don=E2=80=99t get cut in the review process, then >>>> preprints are >>>> >>> something you should definitely consider. Reviewers often ma= ke >>>> >>> published papers better, but maybe not so much better that >>>> it=E2=80=99s worth >>>> >>> waiting many months for others to see your results. >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > arXiv is the oldest website for posting preprints, and if >>>> its >>>> >>> Audio and Speech section is active, that might be a good >>>> place to >>>> >>> post your preprints. But there may be other options for >>>> you. As an >>>> >>> auditory neuroscientist I typically use bioRxiv (e.g., >>>> "Changes in >>>> >>> Cortical Directional Connectivity during Difficult >>>> Listening in >>>> >>> Younger and Older Adults=E2=80=9D >>>> >>> <https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.05.19.541500 >>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.= 1101/2023.05.19.541500__;!!Cn_UX_p3!gAMy-OqskuNw4vfnAPBgUX6cIPtOg5p7k_cv1= W4gXOocOWkRl63Qzfx4lJTGQRWPyJH-PKeOd7o2QXNWIA$>>), >>>> but I >>>> >>> also use PsyArXiv if the topic is more perceptual than >>>> neural (e.g., >>>> >>> =E2=80=9CAttention Mobilization as a Modulator of Listening = Effort: >>>> Evidence >>>> >>> from Pupillometry=E2=80=9D <https://psyarxiv.com/u5xw2 >>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://psyarxiv.com/u5xw2__;!!Cn_U= X_p3!gAMy-OqskuNw4vfnAPBgUX6cIPtOg5p7k_cv1W4gXOocOWkRl63Qzfx4lJTGQRWPyJH-= PKeOd7oii8fuMw$>>). >>>> [See what I mean >>>> >>> about promoting your research on social media?] >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > I=E2=80=99m sure others have opinions too. >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > Jonathan >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> >> On May 22, 2023, at 6:45 PM, Matt Flax >>>> <flatmax@xxxxxxxx> >>>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> Is anyone publishing on arXiv at the moment ? It seems >>>> that to >>>> >>> publish there they rely on a web of trust. >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> There is an Audio and Speech section of arXiv which >>>> would suit >>>> >>> our community. >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> thanks >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> Matt >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > -- >>>> >>> > Jonathan Z. Simon (he/him) >>>> >>> > University of Maryland >>>> >>> > Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering / Dept. of >>>> Biology / >>>> >>> Institute for Systems Research >>>> >>> > 8223 Paint Branch Dr. >>>> >>> > College Park, MD 20742 USA >>>> >>> > Office: 1-301-405-3645, Lab: 1-301-405-9604, Fax: >>>> 1-301-314-9281 >>>> >>> > http://www.isr.umd.edu/Labs/CSSL/simonlab/ >>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.isr.umd.edu/Labs/CSSL/si= monlab/__;!!Cn_UX_p3!gAMy-OqskuNw4vfnAPBgUX6cIPtOg5p7k_cv1W4gXOocOWkRl63Q= zfx4lJTGQRWPyJH-PKeOd7o04YqQAg$> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >> >> >> -- >> Jonathan Z. Simon (he/him) >> University of Maryland >> Dept. of Electrical & Computer=C2=A0Engineering / Dept. of Biology >> /=C2=A0Institute for Systems Research >> 8223 Paint Branch Dr. >> College Park, MD 20742 USA >> Office: 1-301-405-3645, Lab: 1-301-405-9604, Fax: 1-301-314-9281 >> http://www.isr.umd.edu/Labs/CSSL/simonlab/ >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.isr.umd.edu/Labs/CSSL/simo= nlab/__;!!Cn_UX_p3!gAMy-OqskuNw4vfnAPBgUX6cIPtOg5p7k_cv1W4gXOocOWkRl63Qzf= x4lJTGQRWPyJH-PKeOd7o04YqQAg$> >> >> > > > --=20 > *Leslie R. Bernstein, Ph.D. **| *Professor Emeritus > Depts. of Neuroscience and Surgery (Otolaryngology) | UConn School > of Medicine > 263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030-3401 > Office: 860.679.4622 | Fax: 860.679.2495 > > --=20 *Leslie R. Bernstein, Ph.D. **| *Professor Emeritus Depts. of Neuroscience and Surgery (Otolaryngology) | UConn School of=20 Medicine 263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030-3401 Office: 860.679.4622 | Fax: 860.679.2495 --------------befOAsE4K0c0TgOeaBYZKuux Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="------------b8BN5Yx2XeE0cl3do6sp7dpS" --------------b8BN5Yx2XeE0cl3do6sp7dpS Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by edgeum3.it.mcgill.ca id 34VEhhF3121652 <html><head> <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8"> </head> <body> <div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix"><font face=3D"Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">"[Peer review]<span style=3D"font-size:12pt"> on= ly became widespread in the 1960s and 1970s, and it wasn't driven by a need for more rigour but to stem the tide of an overwhelming number of submissions brought about by the proliferation of journals."<br> <br> Perhaps I missed it and, if so, that's my error, but I found nothing in the linked article to support that statement. = <a moz-do-not-send=3D"true" href=3D"https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/= information-culture/the-birth-of-modern-peer-review/">This article</a>, on the history of peer review, dates its inception to the year 1731. <a moz-do-not-send=3D"true" h= ref=3D"https://mitcommlab.mit.edu/broad/commkit/peer-review-a-historical-= perspective/">This article</a> suggests an even earlier date. <a moz-do-no= t-send=3D"true" href=3D"https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/09/26/th= e-rise-of-peer-review-melinda-baldwin-on-the-history-of-refereeing-at-sci= entific-journals-and-funding-bodies/">This article</a> provides an interesting historical perspective.&n= bsp; Interestingly, while they all acknowledge the rise and instantiation of modern peer-review in the 1970s, not a single one supports Dan's cynical account of its origins.<br> <br> As I see it, the utility of peer-review, as a process, is orthogonal to the predatory, greedy, marketing, and profiteering that has become commonplace among many publishers. On that score, I agree with Dan. The pr= ocess of peer-review, itself, could, in theory, be implemented in the absence of publishers.<br> <br> The origins of a practice are often foreign and irrelevant to how that practice functions in modern-day society. Even i= f one were to present evidence consistent with Dan's cynical description of the origins of peer-review, that would not be justification to jettison the practice. I note that standardized college-admission tests were developed originally to prevent Jews from gaining admission to Harvard. Beside= the fact that the ploy was a failure, that certainly isn't how standardized tests have been used for decades. Arguments about the equity of standardized tests aside, I don't think that there's a sane argument to suggest that their purpose today is to actively exclude any particular group or set of groups. No, I will not go down the rabbit hole of the uti= lity of standardized testing.<br> <br> We can and should do better with regard to peer-review and the "marketization" of science. For all of its faul= ts, at least for the journals in which I've chosen to publish, I have found peer-review to be of substantial value from the point of view of an author, a reader, and an editor.<br> <br> Les<br> </span></font><br> On 5/30/2023 6:04 AM, Goodman, Daniel F M wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote type=3D"cite" cite=3D"mid:b9d743dc-8cc7-4502-9010-da61510= 05e01@xxxxxxxx"> =20 <div style=3D"background-color:#D5EAFF; padding:.8em; "> <div style=3D"font-size:12pt; color:#ff0000; text-align: center; font-family: 'Calibri',sans-serif;"> *** Attention: This is an external email. Use caution responding, opening attachments or clicking on links. ***</div> </div> <div> <div id=3D"nine_body_n1886c0-3209c" class=3D"nine_body" dir=3D"au= to" style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12.0pt; line-height:1.3; color:#000000"> <div class=3D"nine-pg" dir=3D"auto">Thanks Etienne for your supportive message!</div> <div class=3D"nine-pg" dir=3D"auto"><br> </div> <div class=3D"nine-pg" dir=3D"auto">Since the issue of age and wisdom keeps coming up, I think it might be worth my saying that the older and more experienced I get (I hesitate to say wiser), the more I question the way we do things now, not the less. As a young researcher I just accepted that this is how things have always been and so it was surely right.</div> <div class=3D"nine-pg" dir=3D"auto"><br> </div> <div class=3D"nine-pg" dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-size:12= pt">It was quite a shock to actually start reading about the origins of the modern form of peer review (systematic review and revisions as a precondition for publication), and this history is perhaps not widely enough known. It wasn't used for the majority of science for the majority of its history. It only became widespread in the 1960s and 1970s, and it wasn't driven by a need for more rigour but to stem the tide of an overwhelming number of submissions brought about by the proliferation of journals. This in turn was a conscious commercial tactic of the early pioneers in for profit publishing. It should be a mark of shame for science that we let these profiteers distort the scientific process for their enrichment, and that we not only continue to do so but actively eulogise in favour of this system.</span><br> </div> <div class=3D"nine-pg" dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-size:12= pt"><br> </span></div> <div class=3D"nine-pg" dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-size:12= pt">That said, thanks in part to the continued efforts of these commercial publishers and willing support from governments, we do have a marketised system of science and there are strong incentives to game the system with low quality papers. So we do need a way to keep that in check. My experience and the evidence shows that the current form of peer review is not delivering. It misses major errors and is systematically biased. It also impedes efforts to do better. Commercial journals (and many but not all society journals) have no incentive to do things that would improve the system like surfacing post publication peer reviews from sites like PubPeer. It would undermine their business model if we all realised that this free service was better than the incredibly expensive and profitable service they are offering.</span></div> <div class=3D"nine-pg" dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-size:12= pt"><br> </span></div> <div class=3D"nine-pg" dir=3D"auto">Anyway, as a final thought = I want to thank science for being the only place now where (in my 40s) I get called youthfully naive. It's a rare treat, as it's been a long time now since the last time i was asked for id when buying alcohol.</div> <div class=3D"nine-pg" dir=3D"auto"><br> </div> <div class=3D"nine-pg" dir=3D"auto">In case you're interested i= n reading more about how modern peer review and journals came to be, I highly recommend this article as a start.</div> <div class=3D"nine-pg" dir=3D"auto"><br> </div> <div class=3D"nine-pg" dir=3D"auto"><a href=3D"https://urldefen= se.com/v3/__https://amp.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-bu= siness-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science__;!!Cn_UX_p3!k6vREvRRA04fRb_= IMeg9FsFvcLcqT6ohkQwJnLLZWOVWnKCFlR5SLFgBTwAQrAWry5Yo9-9Wz9lOGxpG0hyovFL1= aw$" moz-do-not-send=3D"true">https://amp.theguardian.com/science/2017/ju= n/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science</a></div> <div class=3D"nine-pg blank sign" dir=3D"auto"><br> </div> <div id=3D"nine-sign-n1886c0-3209c" class=3D"nine_signature" di= r=3D"auto"> <div class=3D"nine-pg" dir=3D"auto">Dan</div> <div class=3D"nine-pg" dir=3D"auto"><br> </div> <div class=3D"nine-pg" dir=3D"auto">---</div> <div class=3D"nine-pg" dir=3D"auto">This email was written on= my phone, please excuse my brevity.</div> </div> <div class=3D"nine-pg blank msg" dir=3D"auto"><br> </div> </div> <div class=3D"quoted_output_body"> <div id=3D"quoted_header_n1886c0-3209c" class=3D"quoted_header_= editor" dir=3D"auto"> <hr style=3D"border:none; height:1px; color:#E1E1E1; background-color:#E1E1E1"> <div dir=3D"auto" style=3D"border:none; padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt; font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><b>From:<= /b> Etienne Gaudrain <a class=3D"moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href=3D= "mailto:egaudrain.cam@xxxxxxxx"><egaudrain.cam@xxxxxxxx></a><br> <b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, 30 May 2023 05:16<br> <b>To:</b> <a class=3D"moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href=3D"= mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx">AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx</a><br> <b>Subject:</b> Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust<br> </span></div> </div> <br type=3D"attribution"> </div> <div> <div dir=3D"ltr"> <div>Dear Les, Dear List,</div> <div><br> </div> <div>Like Alain, I'm gonna break the rule and talk twice. (As a parenthesis, I actually don't think it is an unspoken rule of the Auditory List, but this is just basic etiquette: in a public debate one has to let other people express themselves too, and one should not assume that their word is so much more valuable than anyone else's. As they say: silence is golden, and I think it's because it gives a chance for others to talk... So, my apologies for holding the mic a bit too long.)</div> <div><br> </div> <div>Les, you wrote:</div> <div><br> </div> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204); padding-left:1ex"> <span style=3D"font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif">I submit to not-yet-established researchers that your time would be much better spent, and your career advanced more rapidly, by reading the peer-reviewed literature-- especially that authored by well-established and respected investigators. (No, that does not mean th= at "new investigators" cannot or do not publish sp= ectacular work).</span></blockquote> <div><br> </div> <div>Although I agree that there is enormous wisdom in past work, I think your advice is rather ill-guided. Ironically, this is how social media works: orators are judged by their clout more than by the merit of what they say. I think we can all agree that, in the process of producing scientific knowledge, we want to avoid that as much as possible.</div> <div><br> </div> <div>In fact, my experience, as a reader and as a reviewer (or as a conference organiser), is that some "well-established and respected investigators" =E2= =80=94 luckily not all of them, but often the most vocal ones =E2=80=94 ha= ve a tendency to get a bit full of themselves and get away with publishing sub-quality material, thanks to their name and reputation.</div> <div><br> </div> <div>When I am a reviewer, I can of course act on it and recommend rejection or heavy correction. Let's take the current discussion as an example*: Dan, to contribute to the debate, gave constructed arguments supported by references reporting carefully constructed studies. On the other side, opposing these arguments, Les, you gave mostly your opinions and left the onus of finding evidence supporting or disproving your views on Dan and other members of the list. Of course Dan is no spring chicken, but he has yet to reach your stature (and so am I). As a reviewer, I might recommend rejecting your arguments as unfounded, but (1) it will take some courage to go against a well-established figure of our field, and (2) there is no guarantee the editor themselves will not side with the better-established author, either because they know them personally better, or because they don't want to alienate them. The consequence in our public debate is that while people may still think that Dan made good points, they might eventually side with you, either because they imagine that your opinion is based on some unspoken wisdom, or simply because this is safer to go along with the bigger player.</div> <div><br> </div> <div>You might say that this, in itself, is a very strong argument for peer-review, and I entirely agree.</div> <div><br> </div> <div>I will add that this is an even stronger argument for not trusting blindly everything that has been peer-reviewed. And as a corollary, I would add: especially if this is a well-established author. After all, "well-established" means you should be able to ho= ld these authors to higher standards...</div> <div><br> </div> <div>In addition, I also think that this illustrates very well the need for open reviews. Everybody should be able to stand behind their reviews. That not only means they should be cordial enough in their tone (as a prerequisite to communication in general, that also applies to well-established authors of reviews, for instance), but should also be well argumented and supported by evidence and references**. This should traditionally be enforced by editors, but I think they too rarely do so, perhaps because they already struggle to find reviewers. I think open reviews would help naturally enforcing good quality and cordiality, but they also help identifying some manuscript that have been poorly reviewed. We can debate on whether they should be anonymous or not, and how much one's reputation would play a role in this. I think pre-prints and peer-communities can play a crucial role there.</div> <div><br> </div> <div>Regarding speed, as much as I think that it is, in general, the recipe for shoddy science, we have to admit that our institutions are constantly pushing for more production, and more hype***. For the lucky ones of us who have an established enough position, we may be able to brush this constraint aside (and I personally try to do so as much as possible and be as slow as one can... the ISH contributors will know what I'm talking about...), but others at early stages of their careers, or those on ever precarious, soft-money positions, may not have that luxury. I would encourage well-established faculty member to put their weight behind denouncing and repelling these policies of precarisation, and constant competition in science, which directly impact the quality of scientific productions. I have the feeling that this would do more for the quality of science than saying "read my book&q= uot;.</div> <div><br> </div> <div>Finally, one should also consider that science has become very technologically complex and new methods are being constantly developed. Open and speedy sharing of these methods can benefit scientific communities and pre-prints can be seen as a good way to share details about these tools. They are also a good way of informing others, in details, about what one is working on, which helps with distributing the research effort more efficiently. In short, while we used to get away with just posters at conferences, where you would take a note "a= h, they used 45 dB, I see" and that'd be enough to genera= te your next experimental paradigm, the complexity of methods nowadays is such that it cannot possibly be explained in details at a conference. Having a formal, carefully prepared report available is very helpful in that sense. In fact, this is not new: Bell's labs, or KTH have published reports from the 50s an 60s that have gained notoriety, and citations, despite being unreviewed.</div> <div><br> </div> <div>And with this, I will go back to being silent.<br> Thanks again for this nice discussion.<br> Best,<br> -Etienne</div> <div><br> </div> <div><br> </div> <div>* Note that I'm well aware that we're having a public discussion, and that the rules of engagement are different than when submitting and reviewing a manuscript, but still think that some elements are informative as illustration.</= div> ** That seems obvious, but I think everyone has had to deal with these short, un-argumented reviews, with which the editor decided to side with, to the bewilderment of the authors... <div>*** One more ironic point here: impact-factor, which is supposed to reflect the reputation of a journal, is actually mostly a measure of speed of citation: it is the number of citations within two years of publication. No wonder it correlates best with retraction rate. Yet another case where reputation is actually working against quality...</div> <div><br> </div> <div><br> </div> </div> <br> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"> <div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon, 29 May 2023 at 06:13, Les Bernstein <<a href=3D"mailto:lbernstein@xxxxxxxx= edu" moz-do-not-send=3D"true" class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext">lbernstein@xxxxxxxx= uchc.edu</a>> wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204); padding-left:1ex"> <div> <div><font size=3D"2" face=3D"Helvetica, Arial, sans-seri= f">I submit to not-yet-established researchers that your time would be much better spent, and your career advanced more rapidly, by reading the peer-reviewed literature-- especially that authored by well-established and respected investigators. (= No, that does not mean that "new investigators"= cannot or do not publish spectacular work).<br> <br> Les</font><br> <br> On 5/26/2023 10:25 AM, Jonathan Z Simon wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote type=3D"cite"> <div style=3D"background-color:rgb(213,234,255); padding:0.8em"> <div style=3D"font-size:12pt; color:rgb(255,0,0); text-align:center; font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> *** Attention: This is an external email. Use caution responding, opening attachments or clicking on links. ***</div> </div> <div>I think it=E2=80=99s a tribute to the Auditory Lis= t that we=E2=80=99ve been able to hear such diverse perspect= ives on preprints. All the opinions I=E2=80=99ve seen express= ed here are based on real-world experience, and that really matters. I would argue that this discussion is a= n example of Social Media =E2=80=9Cdone right=E2=80=9D.= <div><br> </div> <div>To those who see preprints as dangerous:</div> <div>Since they exist and will not go away, please give your students and young colleagues advice how to best navigate their use. Your advice might be that they should simply be ignored, but you may also have more nuanced advice about how to use them to positive advantage: how they should be read and interpreted appropriately (and maybe even when they should be posted, appropriately). Nobody wants their students and young colleagues to hobbled in today=E2=80=99s academic environment.</d= iv> <div><br> </div> <div>To not-yet-established researchers:</div> <div>Consider the benefits expressed previously in this chain: preprints have the potential to enrich and benefit your academic career.</div> <div>--When reading a preprint, remember that that it=E2=80=99s likely a submitted-but-not-yet-peer-re= viewed article. Feel free to use use the authors' ideas and findings to add inspiration to your own work (and then cite them accordingly). As a written paper, it will very likely get better once it=E2=80= =99s been peer reviewed (logical arguments tightened, data analysis improved, wild claims reeled in, etc.), but the guts of the paper will likely not change much. Don=E2=80=99t get hoodwinked by unsupp= orted claims, but don=E2=80=99t leave innovative, inspira= tional ideas on the table either. Feel free to play with the authors=E2=80=99 Matlab/Python code that they a= lso posted publicly (and if it=E2=80=99s not yet posted= , feel free to email the authors to politely ask if they=E2=80=99d be willing to share it).</div> <div>--When writing a paper, consider posting it as a preprint at the same time you submit it to a journal, as a step on the way to it becoming a final (peer-reviewed, formally published) article. If your ultimate goal is share your great ideas with the world at large, preprints can give you an extra lift. Researchers and journal clubs that do read preprints can use your ideas and findings to push their own work forward. If one of your ideas makes into one of their papers, your paper can be cited, and that=E2=80=99s good too, both as a feeli= ng and for your career. Also, check out the evidence Dan Goodman provided below regarding the substantial boost in citations your published paper may get from having been first released as a preprint. Additionally, consider the benefit of having a preprint when you=E2=80=99re writing a grant. If yo= u write about the topic in a grant submission it allows reviewers to distinguish between =E2=80=9Cwork in p= rogress that I=E2=80=99m in the middle or writing up=E2=80=9D= and =E2=80=9Chere=E2=80=99s my paper currently under review and you can also read it if you=E2=80=99d like=E2=80=9D. Some review= ers may not care about the difference, but there are plenty that do: give the reviewers who want to push for your grant some extra ammunition.</div> <div><br> </div> <div>My two cents,</div> <div>Jonathan<br> <div><br> </div> <div> <div><br> <blockquote type=3D"cite"> <div>On May 26, 2023, at 2:50 AM, Adam Weisser <<a href=3D"mailto:adam_weisser@xxxxxxxx= FASTMAIL.FM" target=3D"_blank" moz-do-not-send=3D"true" class=3D"moz-txt-= link-freetext">adam_weisser@xxxxxxxx</a>> wrote:</div> <br> <div> <div style=3D"font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-variant-caps:normal; font-weight:400; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px; text-decoration:none; font-family:Arial"> Dear all,<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-variant-caps:normal; font-weight:400; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px; text-decoration:none; font-family:Arial"> <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-variant-caps:normal; font-weight:400; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px; text-decoration:none; font-family:Arial"> Thank you Matt for bringing up this topic and for everybody who articulated their opinions. This is a very interesting debate, which I find particularly enlightening, given that I am one of those people that has chosen to park their manuscript in arXiv in the foreseeable future.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-variant-caps:normal; font-weight:400; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px; text-decoration:none; font-family:Arial"> <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-variant-caps:normal; font-weight:400; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px; text-decoration:none; font-family:Arial"> If I can try to summarize the gist of the opinions, then it seems that every researcher tends to come up with a set of heuristics to try and determine whether a particular publication is worth their time and effort without actually reading it. These include the reputation of the publication platform, but are additionally influenced greatly by the authors' perceived reputation, their affiliation(s), the level of presentation (aesthetics, language, structure, bibliography, etc.), the type and extent of the claims made, their novelty, their topicality, and for older papers, the number of citations they received. We would like to think that all these give a pretty good idea of whether a paper is worthy even before reading the abstract. Just like any other endeavor, a judgment error here can be a false negative - ignoring a good paper, which could have advanced other results and ideas, and could have saved repeating work, or realizing that what you have been working on had been already done by somebody else. The judgment error here can also be a false positive - giving undeserved attention to an unworthy paper, which may result in waste of time, money, and escalate to wrongly citing it and basing further false claims upon it - a potential embarrassment. To some, there is a pedagogical point to make here, since the risk in a false positive is so high that it is also critical to warn others against it.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-variant-caps:normal; font-weight:400; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px; text-decoration:none; font-family:Arial"> <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-variant-caps:normal; font-weight:400; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px; text-decoration:none; font-family:Arial"> I'd like to offer another perspective about the role and usefulness of arXiv, as I have personally experienced it, which goes beyond its preprint repository function. As it relates to a specific work, it may not be easily generalizable, although I think it highlights the shades of grey involved in the process of doing different forms of science.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-variant-caps:normal; font-weight:400; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px; text-decoration:none; font-family:Arial"> <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-variant-caps:normal; font-weight:400; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px; text-decoration:none; font-family:Arial"> First, publishing on arXiv has liberated me from adhering to the standard article format and allowed for keeping a more organic structure that made better sense for the writing and topic - neither a book nor an article, a hybrid between theory and experiment, something that does not clearly belong in any specific journal. <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-variant-caps:normal; font-weight:400; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px; text-decoration:none; font-family:Arial"> <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-variant-caps:normal; font-weight:400; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px; text-decoration:none; font-family:Arial"> Second, it has allowed for some relaxation of the usual cautiousness of completely refraining from any speculation. While this may be an obvious red flag for some readers, I think it's fair play as long as the act of speculation is clearly stated and the ensuing logical flow is kept in check.<br= > </div> <div style=3D"font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-variant-caps:normal; font-weight:400; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px; text-decoration:none; font-family:Arial"> <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-variant-caps:normal; font-weight:400; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px; text-decoration:none; font-family:Arial"> Third, it has made the question of who can review the material moot. Every reader is a reviewer in their own right and must be able to trust their own judgment. Producing a document that may not be reviewable in the traditional sense because of its length and interdisciplinarity has very lim= ited options for publication. One such option is to publish it as a book or a thesis, if suitable reviewers can be found. Many walls can be hit here. Another option is to break it down to multiple papers and send them to different journals, which would take many years and hoops to jump (a good example is de Boer's "Audito= ry physics" trilogy from 1980, 1984 and 1991, although I don't know the back story of this series). The benefit in going through this usual process may be the increase in trust in the relevance and correctness of the material that the readers should have, while they can also enjoy a better presentation (fewer errors, better focus, etc.). The cost of adhering to traditional format would be many years of delay and loss of precision in the message, as I envision and would like to communicate. It may also be the loss of precedence if someone else has come up with similar ideas at the same time - not at all an uncommon thing in the history of science (e.g., Darwin and Wallace).<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-variant-caps:normal; font-weight:400; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px; text-decoration:none; font-family:Arial"> <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-variant-caps:normal; font-weight:400; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px; text-decoration:none; font-family:Arial"> The alternative was to use arXiv for publication (it could have been another repository). Critically, it provides an agreed upon stamp of authorship with a publication date. At the very least, it has non-zero reputation in several scientific fields, there is very rudimentary control by its staff of what goes into it, initial author affiliation (or reference by affiliated people) is required, and it allows for version updates. More importantly, it relies on trust in the judgment of the few that would be willing to invest time in reading the manuscript, so they can decide for themselves whether it is a worthwhile piece, or one that should have never seen the light of day and be forgotten. I believe it is a more adult way to treat the readers, who should be capable to assess the quality of the work after decades of education, without being prescribed a nominal map of where "bad science" necessarily lies = that must be avoided at all costs.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-variant-caps:normal; font-weight:400; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px; text-decoration:none; font-family:Arial"> <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-variant-caps:normal; font-weight:400; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px; text-decoration:none; font-family:Arial"> Whichever strategy of reading and publishing is embraced, there is going to be no one-rule-fits-all here, and every scholar has to be comfortable with their own choices, obviously. All have clear merits and none is completely infallible.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-variant-caps:normal; font-weight:400; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px; text-decoration:none; font-family:Arial"> <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-variant-caps:normal; font-weight:400; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px; text-decoration:none; font-family:Arial"> Best,<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-variant-caps:normal; font-weight:400; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px; text-decoration:none; font-family:Arial"> Adam.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-variant-caps:normal; font-weight:400; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px; text-decoration:none; font-family:Arial"> <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Helvetica; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-variant-caps:normal; font-weight:400; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px; text-decoration:none"> On Thu, May 25, 2023, at 9:34 PM, Ole C Bialas wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote type=3D"cite" id=3D"m_-43847239= 56471183498qt" style=3D"font-family:Helvetica; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-variant-caps:normal; font-weight:400; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px; text-decoration:none"> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">Thank yo= u Dan, Alain and everyone else for this important debate. I <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">think it= s essential that we, as a field, have a constructive debate <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">about publishing models because it feels like the current model of <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">for-prof= it publishing is unsustainable and will hopefully be replaced by <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">somethin= g better.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial"><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">I agree with most of Dan's arguments in defense of preprints although I <b= r> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">think that the boost in speed and citations is the weakest just because <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">I think there is usually no inherent time-pressure to most of our <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">research - after all, it's not like we are developing vaccines for a <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">global pandemic or something.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial"><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">More importantly, preprints provide open access for readers and authors <br= > </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">and removes gatekeepers. The latter may allow the publishing of research <= br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">that goe= s against widely accepted standards in style, design, <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">methodol= ogy and so on but this kind of heterodoxy is something I <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">personal= ly welcome. Of course, I value the critique of experts but in <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">the current system I don't really get this critique. Instead, I just get <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">the information that someone, who is probably and expert on the matter = <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">and may or may not have spent a lot of time on this particular paper, <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">saw it fit for publication.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial"><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">I am not convinced by Alain's argument that the current peer-review <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">process is a safeguard against bad science. As Dan suggested, there is a <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">good amount of research showing the ineffectiveness of the current <br= > </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">review system. There may even be the danger that certain publications <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">are take= n at face value, instead of being assessed critically, just <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">because they appeared in a reputable journal. Thus, peer-review may <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">provide = a false sense of security, much like the use of helmets in <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">American Football caused an increase in traumatic brain injury because <br= > </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">it lead players to charge head first into each other.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial"><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">The only time I noticed a truly bad effect of preprints was during the <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">pandemic= , when media outlets picked up on flawed corona related research <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">( masks don't work etc.) and then reported it as facts without <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">understa= nding or explaining what a preprint is.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial"><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">I think that it would be useful to have a review process that is open, <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">transpar= ent and detached from publishing, like movie reviews written on <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">pages such as imdb. In this way, scientist could not only access and <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">cite the research itself but also critical reviews of that research. <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">This would also allow young scientists such as myself to get more <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">insight into the secretive world of academic publishing. Of course <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">coming u= p with a good architecture that sets the right incentives for <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">such a system is no trivial task but I don't see clinging to the status <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">quo of publishing as a viable option on the long run.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial"><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">Again, thank you all for adding to this debate!<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">All the best,<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">Ole<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial"><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial"><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">Am 25.05.2023 11:51 schrieb Goodman, Daniel F M:<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> Alain,<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>&nbs= p;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> You write about preprints as if they're some new thing with potentially<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> dangerous unknowable consequences, but they've been around and used<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> extensively (particularly in maths and physics) for over 30 years at<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> thi= s point (arXiv was founded in 1991). Most major funders and journals<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> recognise preprints, probably the majority of funders now have open<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> access requirements that can be fulfilled with preprints, and a few are<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> eve= n mandating their use. It's actually not much younger than the<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> widespread use of peer review, which didn't become a de facto standard<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> until the 1960s-1970s (Nature didn't use it until 1973 for example).<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>&nbs= p;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> Whe= n you say you're not convinced by arguments about speed or number of<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> citations, I guess you mean about the net benefits not about the facts?<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> Because the data is really start: papers in biology which originally<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> appeared as preprints get 36% more citations<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> (<a= href=3D"https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elifesciences.org/articles/5= 2646__;!!Cn_UX_p3!gAMy-OqskuNw4vfnAPBgUX6cIPtOg5p7k_cv1W4gXOocOWkRl63Qzfx= 4lJTGQRWPyJH-PKeOd7rMFkEkGw$" target=3D"_blank" moz-do-not-send=3D"true">= https://elifesciences.org/articles/52646</a>) and the advantage is<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> immediate and long lasting<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> (<a= href=3D"https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.nature.com/nature-index/= news-blog/preprints-boost-article-citations-and-mentions__;!!Cn_UX_p3!gAM= y-OqskuNw4vfnAPBgUX6cIPtOg5p7k_cv1W4gXOocOWkRl63Qzfx4lJTGQRWPyJH-PKeOd7ou= -nQNDA$" target=3D"_blank" moz-do-not-send=3D"true">https://www.nature.co= m/nature-index/news-blog/preprints-boost-article-citations-and-mentions</= a>).<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>&nbs= p;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> To make the argument clearer, let's break it down into the different<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> roles that preprints can have.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>&nbs= p;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> The first role is what preprints can do in the period following the<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> publication of a paper in a journal. In this case, posting a preprint <= br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> of<= br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> a paper fulfills open access requirements and makes it possible for the<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> whole world to read your paper, including the general public, and = <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> people<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> at less wealthy universities and countries that cannot afford the<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> journal subscription. I cannot see any coherent argument against this.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> It'= s a disgrace that the public pays for science but is not able to<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> access the results of the work they paid for, and it is only a <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> hindrance<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> to scientific progress to gate access to knowledge.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>&nbs= p;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> The second role is what preprints can do in the time between the <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> journal<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> accepting the paper and making it available. This is purely about speed<b= r> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> of publication but I can't see any reason why you wouldn't want this<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> speed? I just went to the most recent issue of JASA and looked at the<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> first three papers as a rough sample, and this delay was 3 weeks, 3.5<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> weeks and 6.5 weeks. It's not years, but might make the difference in<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> someone's job or grant application.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>&nbs= p;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> The third role is where I guess you mostly disagree Alain, the time<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> period between publishing the preprint and journal acceptance. But I<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> don't really see any conflict here. If you don't want to read preprints<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> and prefer to wait then just don't read them. But they will have value<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> for other readers (like me) who accept the limitations, and they have<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> great value for the authors (36% more citations for example). For<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> reference, for my sample of JASA papers above, the times from first<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> submission to journal publication were 22 weeks, 27 weeks, and 38 <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> weeks.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>&nbs= p;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> I would dispute the strength of the quality control you mention though.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> A study of peer review at the BMJ with deliberate major and minor <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> errors<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> found that on average peer reviewers picked up on 2.6 to 3 of 9 major<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> errors deliberately introduced<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> (<a= href=3D"https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art= icles/PMC2586872/__;!!Cn_UX_p3!gAMy-OqskuNw4vfnAPBgUX6cIPtOg5p7k_cv1W4gXO= ocOWkRl63Qzfx4lJTGQRWPyJH-PKeOd7p4ulOXTQ$" target=3D"_blank" moz-do-not-s= end=3D"true">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2586872/</a>). That's some<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> sor= t of quality control, but not enough to mean that you can<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> uncritically read peer reviewed papers.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>&nbs= p;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> And on the other hand, there is also a downside to only reading peer<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> reviewed work in that you are subject to editorial and reviewer biases.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> A PNAS study found that a paper submitted with a Nobel prize winner as<= br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> author was recommended for acceptance by 20% of reviewers, but the very<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> sam= e paper with an unknown student as author was only recommended for<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> acceptance 2% of the time<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> (<a= href=3D"https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pna= s.2205779119__;!!Cn_UX_p3!gAMy-OqskuNw4vfnAPBgUX6cIPtOg5p7k_cv1W4gXOocOWk= Rl63Qzfx4lJTGQRWPyJH-PKeOd7pROm8-xg$" target=3D"_blank" moz-do-not-send=3D= "true">https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2205779119</a>).<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>&nbs= p;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> Mor= e controversially perhaps, I think there is a potential fourth role<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> for preprints that are never submitted to a journal. This is very <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> common<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> in maths, physics and computer science and works well there. I think it<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> would work even better when combined with a post-publication peer <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> review<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> platform that made reviews open, prominently displayed with an<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> at-a-glance summary, and easily accessible. But that's an argument for<= br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> another day!<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>&nbs= p;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> Dan= <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>&nbs= p;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> ------ Original Message ------<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> Fro= m "Alain de Cheveigne" <<a h= ref=3D"mailto:alain.de.cheveigne@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank" moz-do-not= -send=3D"true" class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext">alain.de.cheveigne@xxxxxxxx= .eu</a>><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> To "Goodman, Daniel F M" <<a = href=3D"mailto:d.goodman@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank" moz-do-not-sen= d=3D"true" class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext">d.goodman@xxxxxxxx</a>&g= t;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> Cc = "<a href=3D"mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank" moz-d= o-not-send=3D"true" class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext">AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx= .ca</a>" <<a href=3D"mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx= GILL.CA" target=3D"_blank" moz-do-not-send=3D"true" class=3D"moz-txt-link= -freetext">AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx</a>><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> Dat= e 25/05/2023 09:01:43<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">> Subject Re: arXiv web of trust<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>&nbs= p;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> Dan, all,<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> I'm not convinced by arguments about speed of 'publication', number of = <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> citations, or algorithmic suggestions. Think 'fake news' and the <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> impact of recommendation algorithms on the quality of information, <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> minds, and the state of the world.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> The review process can be seen as quality control. A product maker <= br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> that eliminates that phase can deliver them faster, introduce jazzier <br= > </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> products, make more money, and dominate the market. Peer-review - like <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> product quality control - doesn't eliminate all flaws, but it may make&nb= sp;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> them less likely and easier to spot and eliminate.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> I suspect there is a generational dimension to this debate. The three&nbs= p;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> of us that argued most strongly in defence of the review process have = ;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> (or have had) a well-established career. How could we not defend the&nbs= p;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> practices that got us there? Someone struggling to gain recognition, <b= r> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> and a job, may be tempted by mechanisms that bypass those practices. <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> Fair enough, but beware. It might be a bit like tearing down the walls <b= r> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> and ripping up the floor to feed the boiler.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> The debate may become moot with the introduction of AI-based tools to = <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> assist writing and reviewing. Why not use similar tools to read the <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> papers too, and understand them, and produce new science (of possibly <= br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> better quality)? This sounds grea= t, except that I don't see much room = <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> for a human scientist in that loop.&nbs= p; So much for your careers.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> I find the generational issue unnerving, personally. For the first&nb= sp;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> time in my life, I'm old and the others are new. It takes some&nbs= p;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> getting used to.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>> Alain<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > On 24 May 2023, at 15:42, Goodman, Daniel F M <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <<a href=3D"mailto:d.goodman@xxxxxxxx= L.AC.UK" target=3D"_blank" moz-do-not-send=3D"true" class=3D"moz-txt-link= -freetext">d.goodman@xxxxxxxx</a>> wrote:<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > I have no hesitation in calling a preprint a "publication". The= re's <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > no magic in peer review that makes it not count as published before <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > this process. Even the word preprint is archaic now given how many <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > journals are online only.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Personally, I now primarily read preprints because most of the work = ;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > in the areas I'm interested in appears a year or two earlier as <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > preprints than in a journal. It's much more exciting and progress can <br= > </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > be much faster when there isn't a multi year between doing work and = <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > seeing how others make use of it. I just had an email from someone <br= > </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > asking if they could cite a tweet of mine that had inspired them to <br= > </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > do some work and this sort of thing is great! Why should we accept <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > years of delay between each increment of progress?<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Of course, reading preprints means you have to cautious. But, I <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > always treat papers I read critically whether they've been through <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > peer review or not, and I would encourage everyone to do the same. = ;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Peer review is of very uneven quality, based on quantitative studies <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > and based on my own experience as a reviewer reading the other <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > reviews. Terrible papers with glaring errors get through peer review. <b= r> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > So I don't think we can uncritically accept the results of peer <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > reviewed papers, and in practice most scientists don't. We criticise <br= > </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > peer reviewed papers all the time. It's this process of review or <br= > </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > feedback after publication that is the real scientific process, and <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > it would be much easier if the reviews were made available so we <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > could more easily judge for ourselves. The sooner we move to a system <br= > </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > of open and transparent post publication peer review like the systems <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Etienne is talking about, the better.<b= r> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > I do agree with Alain's point that there are too many papers to read = <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > them all, but for me that's not an argument for the traditional <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > approach to peer review but for experimenting with different <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > approaches to recommending papers. Again personally, I find I have a = <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > higher hit rate with algorithmic suggestions from Semantic Scholar = <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > and from things I see posted on social media than I do from going <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > through journal table of contents (which I still do out of habit).<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > And as a last point to encourage preprints, the evidence shows that = ;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > papers that are first available as a preprint get cited more overall. <= br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > And if that doesn't convince you I don't know what will. =EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD= <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Dan<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > ---<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > This email was written on my phone, please excuse my brevity.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > From: Etienne Gaudrain <<a href=3D"m= ailto:egaudrain.cam@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank" moz-do-not-send=3D"true"= class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext">egaudrain.cam@xxxxxxxx</a>><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Sent: Wednesday, 24 May 2023 10:38<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > To: <a href=3D"mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx= TS.MCGILL.CA" target=3D"_blank" moz-do-not-send=3D"true" class=3D"moz-txt= -link-freetext">AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx</a><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Thanks for opening this nice debate, Max!<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > I side with Brian for the need of serious peer-review, but I am less = ;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > sure how this can be achieved nowadays. Publishers are increasingly&n= bsp;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > pressuring reviewers to work fast because their business model relies&nbs= p;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > on volume, and there seems to be little cost to publishing poor <br= > </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > quality papers. With the ever precarisation of research, it takes a&n= bsp;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > very strong faith in the ethos of scientific integrity to remain a <= br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > thorough reviewer.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > If we accept that, as a consequence of this pressure, there are more <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > flawed papers that pass the review process, it would mean that we, as = ;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > consumers of the literature, should be more cautious when citing <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > articles. We should more critically examine what we cite, and sort of = <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > perform our own review. But of course, that's also very time <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > consuming... and it is also very inefficient at the scale of the <b= r> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > community: me *not* citing an article because I found that it is <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > potentially flawed will not prevent others from citing it, and the <br= > </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > effort I will have put in reviewing it will be largely wasted.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > So I do believe that there is a strong benefit in having more open <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > discussions about papers, and in some cases, the fact that they are <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > published or not in the traditional sense, may be partially <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > irrelevant. We definitely don't want to turn the scientific community <= br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > into social media, where a few arbitrary influencers get to decide&nbs= p;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > what's worthy and what isn't. But there are now places where <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > scientific arguments can be shared, and reflections can be had, <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > constructively.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > That's what we tried to do for the last edition of the International = <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Symposium on Hearing, but hosting the papers as "pre-print" (for la= ck <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > of a better term) freely available on Zenodo <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > (<a href=3D"https://urldefense.com/v3/_= _https://zenodo.org/communities/ish2022/__;!!Cn_UX_p3!gAMy-OqskuNw4vfnAPB= gUX6cIPtOg5p7k_cv1W4gXOocOWkRl63Qzfx4lJTGQRWPyJH-PKeOd7pDqTT99Q$" target=3D= "_blank" moz-do-not-send=3D"true">https://zenodo.org/communities/ish2022/= </a>), and reviews are made <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > publically available on PubPeer (and more can be added; here's an <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > example: <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <a href=3D"https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://pubpeer.com/publ= ications/B12EF572A02E04659AF006FF9C5C91__;!!Cn_UX_p3!gAMy-OqskuNw4vfnAPBg= UX6cIPtOg5p7k_cv1W4gXOocOWkRl63Qzfx4lJTGQRWPyJH-PKeOd7of9ZXZUg$" target=3D= "_blank" moz-do-not-send=3D"true">https://pubpeer.com/publications/B12EF5= 72A02E04659AF006FF9C5C91</a>). <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Contributors are still able to publish their articles in the <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > traditional sense, and hopefully the published version will be <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > connected to the ISH version in some form so that users can view the <b= r> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > history and comments. In others words, there is much benefit for the <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > two systems to co-exist (we can get rid of private publishers, <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > though, and switch to decentralized institutional ones).<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Remains the problem raised by Alain: as readers, how do we deal with <b= r> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > the volume? While publishers have been selling us "reputation" in th= e <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > form of journals in very much overrated ways (such as impact factors, <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > and what not), it is true that journals do have a curating role that&n= bsp;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > should not be underestimated. This being said, editors do not <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > actively seek authors to steer publications towards a specific topic&n= bsp;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > (besides Frontiers' take it all harassment approach). It is still the&n= bsp;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > authors that decide to submit to a specific journal or another. As a = <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > result, following the JASA TOC gives us access to a semi-random <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > sample of what's going on in the field. It does offer, <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > stochastically, some degree of protection against confirmation bias&nb= sp;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > in literature search (whereby you only look for papers that confirm <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > your idea). I wonder if automatic suggestions of "related papers&quo= t; <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > could achieve something similar in other venues?<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Cheers,<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > -Etienne<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > --<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Etienne Gaudrain, PhD<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Lyon Neuroscience Research Centre / Auditory Cognition and <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Psychoacoustics (CAP)<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > CNRS UMR5292, Inserm U1028, Universit=C3= =A9 Lyon 1<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Centre Hospitalier Le Vinatier - B=C3=A2timent 462 - Neurocampus<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > 95 boulevard Pinel, 69675 Bron Cedex, France<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 10:56, Alain de Cheveigne <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <<a href=3D"mailto:alain.de.cheveign= e@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank" moz-do-not-send=3D"true" class=3D"moz-txt= -link-freetext">alain.de.cheveigne@xxxxxxxx</a>> wrote:<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Hi Jonathan, all,<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Here's a different perspective.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > First of all, the issue of peer review should be distinguished from <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > that of publishers shaving the wool off our backs (more below).<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Peer review offers functions that we miss out on in the preprint <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > model. Weeding out junk is one, improving papers (and the ideas in = ;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > them) is another. A third is reducing the bulk of things to read.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > The last might seem counterintuitive: surely, more is better? The = <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > thing is, we have limited time and cognitive bandwidth. Lack of time = <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > is the major obstacle to keeping abreast, and lack of time of the <= br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > potential audience is what prevents our ideas having an impact. You <b= r> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > painstakingly work to solve a major problem in the field, write it up = <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > carefully, and no one notices because attention is carried away by <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > the tweet cycle.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > The review/journal model helps in several ways. First, by <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > prioritizing things to read (as an alternative to the random - or <br= > </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > otherwise biased - selection induced by lack of time). Second, by = ;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > improving the readability of the papers: more readable means less <= br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > time per paper means more attention for other papers - including <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > possibly yours. Third, by organizing - however imperfectly - the <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > field.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > For example, you can (or could) keep abreast of a topic in acoustics <b= r> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > by scanning JASA and a few other journals. With the preprint/twitter&nbs= p;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > model the 'field' risks being shattered into micro-fields, bubbles,&n= bsp;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > or cliques.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > My experience of the review process is - as everyone's - mixed. I <= br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > remember intense frustration at the reviewer's dumbness, and despair <= br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > at ever getting published. I also remember what I learned in the <br= > </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > process. Almost invariably, my pa= pers were improved by orders of <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > magnitude (not just incrementally).<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > I also spend a lot of time reviewing. I find it a painful process, <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > as it involves reading (I'm a bit dyslexic), and trying to understand&nbs= p;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > what is written and - to be helpful to the author - what the author <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > had in mind and how he/she could better formulate it to get the <br= > </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > message across, and avoid wasting the time of - hopefully - countless <b= r> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > readers. It does involve weeding out some junk too.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Science is not just about making new discoveries or coming up with <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > radically new ideas. These are few and far between. Rather, it's a <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > slow process of building on other people's ideas, digesting, tearing = ;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > down, clearing the rubble, and building some more. The review process <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > makes the edifice more likely to stand. Journals play an important = <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > role in this accumulation, even if most content is antiquated and <br= > </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > boring. It's a miracle that some journals have done this over <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > decades, even centuries.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Which brings back to the issue of money, impact factors, and <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > careers. Lots to say about that, mostly depressing, but mainly <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > orthogonal from the peer-review issue.<= br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Alain<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > > On 23 May 2023, at 13:54, Jonathan Z Simon <<a href=3D"mailto:= jzsimon@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank" moz-do-not-send=3D"true" class=3D"moz-= txt-link-freetext">jzsimon@xxxxxxxx</a>> <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > wrote:<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > ><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > > Matt,<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > ><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > > In this context I would avoid the term =E2=80=9Cpublishing=E2=80=9D, sinc= e that <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > has such a different meaning for so many people, but I personally do <= br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > take advantage of posting preprints on a public server (like arXiv) <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > almost every chance I get.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > ><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > > Preprints (preprint =3D a fully written paper that is not (yet) <b= r> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > published) have been useful for many decades, originally in physics, <b= r> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > as a way of getting one's research results out in a timely manner. <b= r> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Other key benefits are that it establishes primacy of the research&nbs= p;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > findings, that it is citable in other researchers' papers, and that <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > it can be promoted by social media such as this listserve (more below = ;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > on this). But the biggest benefit is typically getting the paper out <b= r> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > into the world for others to learn from, without having to wait based = ;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > on the whims of publishers and individual reviewers. If most of your&n= bsp;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > published papers get accepted eventually, and the most important = ;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > findings don=E2=80=99t get cut in the r= eview process, then preprints are <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > something you should definitely consider. Reviewers often make <br= > </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > published papers better, but maybe not so much better that it=E2=80=99s worth&= nbsp;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > waiting many months for others to see your results.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > ><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > > arXiv is the oldest website for posting preprints, and if its <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Audio and Speech section is active, that might be a good place to <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > post your preprints. But there may be other options for you. As an <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > auditory neuroscientist I typically use bioRxiv (e.g., "Changes in&nbs= p;<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Cortical Directional Connectivity during Difficult Listening in <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Younger and Older Adults=E2=80=9D = <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > <<a href=3D"https://urldefense.com/v= 3/__https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.05.19.541500__;!!Cn_UX_p= 3!gAMy-OqskuNw4vfnAPBgUX6cIPtOg5p7k_cv1W4gXOocOWkRl63Qzfx4lJTGQRWPyJH-PKe= Od7o2QXNWIA$" target=3D"_blank" moz-do-not-send=3D"true">https://www.bior= xiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.05.19.541500</a>>), but I <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > also use PsyArXiv if the topic is more perceptual than neural (e.g., <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > =E2=80=9CAttention Mobilization as a Mo= dulator of Listening Effort: Evidence <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > from Pupillometry=E2=80=9D <<a href=3D= "https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://psyarxiv.com/u5xw2__;!!Cn_UX_p3!gAMy= -OqskuNw4vfnAPBgUX6cIPtOg5p7k_cv1W4gXOocOWkRl63Qzfx4lJTGQRWPyJH-PKeOd7oii= 8fuMw$" target=3D"_blank" moz-do-not-send=3D"true">https://psyarxiv.com/u= 5xw2</a>>). [See what I mean <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > about promoting your research on social media?]<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > ><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > > I=E2=80=99m sure others have opini= ons too.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > ><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > > Jonathan<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > ><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > ><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > >> On May 22, 2023, at 6:45 PM, Matt Flax <<a href=3D"mailto:flatmax= @xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank" moz-do-not-send=3D"true" class=3D"moz-txt= -link-freetext">flatmax@xxxxxxxx</a>> <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > wrote:<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > >><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > >> Is anyone publishing on arXiv at the moment ? It seems that to <= br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > publish there they rely on a web of trust.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > >><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > >> There is an Audio and Speech section of arXiv which would suit = <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > our community.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > >><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > >> thanks<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > >><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > >> Matt<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > ><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > > --<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > > Jonathan Z. Simon (he/him)<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > > University of Maryland<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > > Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering / Dept. of Biology / <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > Institute for Systems Research<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > > 8223 Paint Branch Dr.<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > > College Park, MD 20742 USA<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > > Office: 1-301-405-3645, Lab: 1-301-405-9604, Fax: 1-301-314-9281<br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > > <a href=3D"https://urldefense= .com/v3/__http://www.isr.umd.edu/Labs/CSSL/simonlab/__;!!Cn_UX_p3!gAMy-Oq= skuNw4vfnAPBgUX6cIPtOg5p7k_cv1W4gXOocOWkRl63Qzfx4lJTGQRWPyJH-PKeOd7o04YqQ= Ag$" target=3D"_blank" moz-do-not-send=3D"true">http://www.isr.umd.edu/La= bs/CSSL/simonlab/</a><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > ><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= > ><br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">>>= </div> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote> </div> <br> <div> <div dir=3D"auto" style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0); letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px; text-decoration:none"> <div dir=3D"auto" style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0); letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px; text-decoration:none"> <div style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0); letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px"> --<br> Jonathan Z. Simon (he/him)</div> <div style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0); letter-spacing:normal; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; word-spacing:0px"> University of Maryland<br> Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering / Dept. of Biol= ogy / Institute for Systems Research<br> 8223 Paint Branch Dr.<br> College Park, MD 20742 USA<br> Office: 1-301-405-3645, Lab: 1-301-405-9604, Fax: 1-301-314-9281<br> <a href=3D"https://urldefense.com/v3/__ht= tp://www.isr.umd.edu/Labs/CSSL/simonlab/__;!!Cn_UX_p3!gAMy-OqskuNw4vfnAPB= gUX6cIPtOg5p7k_cv1W4gXOocOWkRl63Qzfx4lJTGQRWPyJH-PKeOd7o04YqQAg$" target=3D= "_blank" moz-do-not-send=3D"true">http://www.isr.umd.edu/Labs/CSSL/simonl= ab/</a><br> <br> </div> </div> </div> </div> <br> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <br> <br> <div>-- <br> <div> <div><b><span>Leslie R. Bernstein, Ph.D. </span></b><= b><span>| </span></b><span>Professor Emeritus</span><span><= /span><span></span><br> <div> <div> <div><span></span> <div><span>Depts. of Neuroscience and Surgery (Otolaryngology) | UConn School of Medicine </span><br> <span></span><span>263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030-3401</span><br> <span></span><span>Office: 860.679.4622 | Fax: 860.679.2495<br> <br> <img src=3D"cid:part1.UM9mQSVU.EmngL8Xm@xxxxxxxx= chc.edu" alt=3D"" class=3D"" width=3D"125" height=3D"48"><br> </span></div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <br> <br> <div class=3D"moz-signature">-- <br> =20 <title></title> <div class=3D"moz-signature"> <div class=3D"moz-signature"><b><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;f= ont-family:"Arial",sans-serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman \;color\:\#002048"">Leslie R. Bernstein, Ph.D. </span>= </b><b><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans= -serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman \;color\:\#585858"">| </span></b><span style=3D"font-s= ize:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;mso-fareast-font-fami= ly:"Times New Roman \;color\:\#585858"">Professor Emeritus</span><= span style=3D"mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p>= </o:p></span><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial"= ;,sans-serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman \;color\:\#585858""></span><br> <div class=3D"moz-signature"> <div class=3D"moz-signature"> <div class=3D"moz-signature"><span style=3D"font-size:10.0p= t;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman \;color\:\#585858""></span> <div class=3D"moz-signature"><span style=3D"font-size:10.= 0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman \;color\:\#585858""> Depts. of Neuroscience and Surgery (Otolaryngology) | UConn School of Medicine </span><br> <span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial= ",sans-serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman \;color\:\#585858""></span><span style=3D"font-s= ize:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman \;color\:\#585858"">263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030-3401</span><br> <span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial= ",sans-serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman \;color\:\#585858""></span><span style=3D"font-s= ize:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman \;color\:\#585858"">Office: 860.679.4622 | Fax: 860.679.2495<br> <br> <img moz-do-not-send=3D"false" src=3D"cid:part1.UM9mQ= SVU.EmngL8Xm@xxxxxxxx" alt=3D"" width=3D"125" height=3D"48"><br> </span> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </body> </html> --------------b8BN5Yx2XeE0cl3do6sp7dpS Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png" Content-ID: <part1.UM9mQSVU.EmngL8Xm@xxxxxxxx> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAH0AAAAwCAMAAAALmIWlAAAAGXRFWHRTb2Z0d2FyZQBBZG9iZSBJ bWFnZVJlYWR5ccllPAAAADNQTFRFKzVYHCZM4eLn8PHzpKi30dTbaG+IlZqrs7fDWWB8O0Nkd32U wsXPSlJwhoufDRhA////A68jmAAAABF0Uk5T/////////////////////wAlrZliAAACYklEQVR4 2uzY22KDIAwAUC7e6gjw/187gUC4OetaupflaTXKWSuBKNMuJptC+QMCP20auPHBQCubBWU46K24 uB7NfZ58ZqaMP8D8AEBHtT/goXnB8WPwBf8r1WYUXWxUOZobHcJXIMcfONclmE4s0lrRzYBIOjvT jX5WV6YbP2ZQJ6TWjfiAbuYzHW7p+xpuolQrP83sjQ5nupnu6LqaJ92MbnSznulcfkBHpNXNY6y+ c0JKnWX1eFeflQt5qcNESKnrQMrf6LSAXeiWkEoXdOU4nZBKxzPnoTohtW5ZZyK8W09Io6tYjyP1 iDS6XbAeh815S0irS6zHUfXuB0Ok1S3W41AdEWh1/Nb7UD1bWytd0LY4ThdnerYbBJ1taT5XBmy4 J8mNnWagp5fbba6HeiTdneK6vNgoFj0EhyO4eSZT6AlpdNXoNzqYi94GbIU0eqhHp3d5drRf4heZ Uo9Iq8vYptup6VB37H6m/W6m0hFpdaxH3/yK9cHpVq5Zy59n2GMV/QxPGdV9NElPE9njyOozsfWW Kq6j7bLuw97KPBnM/mX86//6n+tH/yLKP7AUXcyd80Lx53WnspB47ty5qKND1gLockfIFzHR7srp Q7X0+6GgHPNFXedPyaN1CPFli71z+ZBeTxbcI2RXxwOQj/lW/Ui610Z6gA4a32WRrssXYbO76V/Z y6FLnZVj/qCnqGcdZE1DeFKcntWrMV/RZXCh7B/fpF/+8tQQx6J74y9/Oeuyrm75+Jyf8oKWH9CL 1SYNJtJ91HTOAD2fdjPN9UcsumwmDNYXqvPtOLa9pH8LMACnoV0siZAyOAAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== --------------b8BN5Yx2XeE0cl3do6sp7dpS-- --------------befOAsE4K0c0TgOeaBYZKuux--