Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] [External] Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust From: Brent Edwards <brent@xxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 13:26:45 +1000--647ff8fa_13750342_9f60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Here=E2=80=99s what chatGPT has to say about arXiv vs peer review: I recognize the value of both preprint online archives like arXiv and pee= r-reviewed publication in journals. Each has its unique benefits and cons= iderations, and understanding their respective values is crucial for diss= eminating research findings effectively. Preprint online archives, such as arXiv, offer several advantages that ma= ke them valuable for researchers. =46irstly, they provide a platform for = researchers to share their work with the scientific community quickly. Th= is allows for rapid dissemination of research findings and facilitates co= llaboration, as fellow researchers can access and provide feedback on the= preprint. This open and transparent approach to sharing scientific knowl= edge encourages discussions and the exchange of ideas, fostering scientif= ic progress. Another significant benefit of preprint archives is that they offer a cha= nce to receive feedback on research before formal peer review. This can b= e particularly useful in refining the work, identifying potential flaws o= r limitations, and strengthening the overall research design. =46eedback = received through the preprint process can contribute to improving the res= earch before submitting it to a peer-reviewed journal. =46urthermore, posting a preprint on an online archive establishes a clea= r and early record of priority and intellectual ownership. In highly comp= etitive research fields, where multiple groups might be working on simila= r projects simultaneously, this can be crucial for establishing precedenc= e. On the other hand, peer-reviewed publication in journals remains a vital = aspect of scientific research and academic advancement. Peer review provi= des a rigorous evaluation process by experts in the field, ensuring the q= uality, validity, and reliability of the research. Through this process, = potential flaws, errors, or biases can be identified and addressed, resul= ting in higher-quality publications. Publishing in reputable peer-reviewed journals also adds a stamp of appro= val and credibility to the research. It signifies that the work has met t= he standards of the scientific community and has undergone rigorous scrut= iny. This validation is particularly important for researchers seeking te= nure, promotions, or funding, as it carries weight in the academic commun= ity. Moreover, journals often have wider readership and visibility than prepri= nt archives, making it more likely that the research will reach a broader= audience. Journal publications are often indexed in databases and search= engines, which facilitate discoverability and citation by other research= ers. This, in turn, can enhance the researcher's reputation, impact, and = career progression. In summary, preprint online archives like arXiv offer rapid dissemination= , early feedback, and a transparent platform for sharing research, foster= ing collaboration and discussion within the scientific community. Peer-re= viewed publication in journals, on the other hand, provides a rigorous ev= aluation process, validation, credibility, wider readership, and increase= d visibility. Recognizing the value of both avenues, researchers often ut= ilize preprint archives to share early versions of their work while worki= ng towards the goal of journal publication to receive formal recognition = and validation. =E2=80=94Brent On 6 Jun 2023 at 7:39 PM +1000, Jan Schnupp <000000e042a1ec30-dmarc-reque= st=40LISTS.MCGILL.CA>, wrote: > I guess if reputation biases peer review as heavily as the consensus se= ems to think here, then what does the often pretty hard time I get from m= y reviewers tell me about my reputation=3F ... =F0=9F=A4=94=F0=9F=98=9D > > Jan > > > On Tue, 6 Jun 2023, 17:17 Peter Harrison, <pmch2=40cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > > > Several colleagues have mentioned how peer review is unduly biased = by the reputation of the authors/institutions. I agree that this is an im= portant problem, but it's only fair to observe that it applies to preprin= ts too. In a world where we don't have time to read every preprint, many = people will still end up using imperfect proxies for deciding what to rea= d, such as the reputation of the authors/institutions. In the absence of = a journal's mark of approval, these imperfect proxies could grow more inf= luential, not less influential. > > > > > > Best wishes > > > Peter > > > =46rom: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception <AUDITORY=40LIST= S.MCGILL.CA> on behalf of Helia Relano Iborra <0000017f74f788f8-dmarc-req= uest=40LISTS.MCGILL.CA> > > > Sent: 06 June 2023 09:21 > > > To: AUDITORY=40LISTS.MCGILL.CA <AUDITORY=40LISTS.MCGILL.CA> > > > Subject: Re: =5BAUDITORY=5D =5BExternal=5D Re: =5BAUDITORY=5D arXiv= web of trust > > > > > > Dear Brian, all, > > > > > > Thank you for a very enriching discussion. I just wanted to counter= Brian=E2=80=99s last email, regarding the neutrality of peer review. The= re is extensive evidence of =E2=80=9Cstatus bias=E2=80=9D in the peer-rev= iew system in studies comparing single-blind vs double-blind reviews. E.g= . Huber et al. (2022) https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2205779119 or= Blank (1991) https://www.jstor.org/stable/2006906. No system (or person)= is free of bias, unfortunately. I think recognizing that these biases ex= ist and being aware of them when we are reviewing manuscripts can only ma= ke us better reviewers. > > > > > > Best, > > > Helia. > > > > > > > > > <> > > > Helia Rela=C3=B1o Iborra > > > Postdoc > > > Hearing Systems Section > > > Department of Health Technology > > > heliaib=40dtu.dk > > > =C3=98rsteds Plads > > > Building 352 > > > 2800=C2=A0Kgs. Lyngby > > > www.dtu.dk/english > > > > > > > > > =46rom: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception <AUDITORY=40LIST= S.MCGILL.CA> On Behalf Of Brian =46G Katz (SU) > > > Sent: 6. juni 2023 09:27 > > > To: AUDITORY=40LISTS.MCGILL.CA > > > Subject: Re: =5BAUDITORY=5D =5BExternal=5D Re: =5BAUDITORY=5D arXiv= web of trust > > > > > > Dear Bob, et al, > > > > > > I feel obliged to reply to some serious statements made in recent p= osts. While i think there is little doubt that numerous bias elements (pr= ivileges of various sorts=22 are present in career evolutions, recruitmen= t committees, promotions, be them academic or corporate, I must return to= the discussion to the topic at hand, in the broad sense, of the importan= ce of peer-review. > > > > > > As a regular reviewer in various journals (and fields of acoustics)= what is judged is the work on the page, no more and no less. No free rid= es are given to authors of high reputation (sometime more scrutiny), nor = penalties to young unknowns or unrepresented countries (sometimes more fl= exibility is given). If the arguement for publication is unpersuasive, it= is solely on the merit of the presentation of the work. I say it this wa= y because again it is only what is on the page that is reviewed. The work= itself may be of high standards, but a work is reviewed by what is state= d, not what is intended. As an Associate Editor, the same is true. Specif= ic knowledge of the author is really only needed to assure lack of direct= conflicts of interest in selecting reviewers. I have never considered th= e background,=C2=A0 academic or career history of an author in accepting = or rejecting a manuscript. I would even go so far as to say if one consid= ers these elements in one's reviews they should probably recuse themselve= s from such benevolent activities to the community. > > > > > > =46inally, returning to the question of arXiv and preprints, where = this all started, I don't think anyone came out against them on the whole= , but they should be taken for what they are, and no more. They are a sci= entific blog or a conference proceeding. They do not hold the same value,= or represent the same rigor of critique, that a journal article has pass= ed. Thie difference is clear. However, it is only really relevant in a fe= w circumstances: as a substantive citation in another journal article, in= an academic/research career application/review, or a project proposal (a= version of the previous point). If one doesn't require these elements, a= nd that is a choice, then one isn't limited by the means one chooses to d= isseminate one's work. No one has critiqued the use of arxiv and the like= , per se,=C2=A0 but if one is competing on the quality of one's work, the= process of peer-review is the widely accepted passage for some semblance= of quality, for which no other alternative currently exists. A review co= mmittee cannot be expected to read every article, let alone the comments = section, and be required to form an opinion. > > > > > > This does not say the process cannot be improved, and that is also = the motivation for journal quality classifications and the exclusion of s= ome journals from being =22acceptable=22 is those situations. Such rapid = publication and limited review journals are more akin to arXiv than a rep= utable journal, though with fees, and rightly so with regards to scientif= ic scrutiny. One is free to use them for what they are, but one should no= t make claims that they are anything more. > > > > > > At least, that is my perspective. > > > -- > > > Brian =46G Katz > > > Equipe LAM : Lutheries Acoustique Musique > > > Sorbonne Universit=C3=A9, CNRS, Institut =E2=88=82'Alembert > > > > > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > > > =46rom: =22McMurray, Bob=22 <bob-mcmurray=40UIOWA.EDU> > > > Date: 6/6/23 06:09 (GMT+01:00) > > > To: AUDITORY=40LISTS.MCGILL.CA > > > Subject: Re: =5BAUDITORY=5D =5BExternal=5D Re: =5BAUDITORY=5D arXiv= web of trust > > > > > > Hi Colleagues > > > > > > I=E2=80=99ve been watching from the wings on this discussion as I t= hink our field is in a real point of flux with respect to scientific publ= ishing and communication, and I don=E2=80=99t think I know what=E2=80=99s= best any more. =C2=A0=C2=A0Its been fun to watch a very healthy and vigo= rous conversation unfold amonst my esteemed colleagues =E2=80=93 both jun= ior and senior =E2=80=93 and I=E2=80=99ve learned a lot. > > > > > > However, Matt (and Deniz) made a very powerful point, that I felt t= he need to weigh in on.=C2=A0 They argue that the very nature of scientif= ic communication is pervaded by issues power, positionality and discrimin= ation. I don=E2=80=99t think I realized this till recently (perhaps I was= an Eagle in that cartoon), but they are right. It=E2=80=99s important. > > > > > > Les, I respect your point of view.=C2=A0 We should be having these = open and objective conversations and we should strive for that.=C2=A0 But= we also have to recognize that this is an aspirational point of view.=C2= =A0 In my view, the rhetoric of science is not objective. Its persuasive.= =C2=A0 A scientific discovery from my lab is not a fact until I convince = the scientific community to believe it (or at least convince Reviewers 1,= 2 and 3).=C2=A0 The rules of science =E2=80=93 statistical and methodolog= ical norms, peer review, and the like -- are really designed to ensure th= at this persuasion is all geared to some mutually acceptable norms of obj= ectivity.=C2=A0 It often works and there=E2=80=99s not much better. > > > > > > But fundamentally this is still a persuasive enterprise (as it shou= ld be).=C2=A0 And fundamentally, some people =E2=80=93 by virtue of their= station and background =E2=80=93 are going to be in a better place to pe= rsuade their colleagues than others.=C2=A0 We commonly associate these is= sues of discrimination and positionality with things like race, religion = and gender.=C2=A0 And indeed these things matter =E2=80=93 just look at t= he disparities among the medalists of the ASA and you can see for yoursel= f. > > > > > > But a good friend of mine recently showed me how these kind of fact= ors extend all throughout academia.=C2=A0 Are some fields privileged=3F=C2= =A0 Are hearing scientists more likely to discount a finding from a lingu= ist or a social scientist than someone who is solidly situated in hearing= science=3F=C2=A0 What about a finding from a small clinical population (= a =E2=80=9Cniche=E2=80=9D field) or an obscure auditory phenomena vs. as = opposed to a finding based on the core =E2=80=9Cmodal=E2=80=9D NH adult i= n a sound proof booth=3F=C2=A0 Are we more likely to take a finding serio= usly if it was generated by one of the top universities (in our field) th= an a second tier state university=3F=C2=A0 Or from a new scholar that was= trained by one of the best vs. an emerging scholar who came to the field= more independently=3F=C2=A0 What about a person who is changing fields =E2= =80=93 migrating, for example, from a field like cognitive science to aud= iology or hearing science=3F=C2=A0 What about clinical credentialing=3F=C2= =A0 Does that help or harm our cases=3F > > > > > > All of these things have nothing to do with the objective argument = that is being made and the quality of the data used to support it.=C2=A0 = But we all must admit that they do change how much credence we are likely= to give a discussion or a paper (and each of us may weigh these differen= tly).=C2=A0 Sometimes these are useful heuristics =E2=80=93 if the method= s aren=E2=80=99t clear, but you know how a person was trained, it may be = easier to trust that the experiments were done right.=C2=A0 But sometimes= this is just downright discriminatory, like when we discount contributio= ns from outside what we perceive as the core field. > > > > > > But how does this impact scientific publishing=3F > > > > > > Matt makes the valuable point that as our field opens up to new vie= wpoints and new participants, the view from those people may be very diff= erent than the view from the people at the top.=C2=A0 We should listen. P= eople do struggle to gain entry to this field.=C2=A0 I certainly did when= I began working in hearing science, despite my training at a very good c= ognitive science program. > > > > > > Peer review is part of the problem.=C2=A0 It can amplify these bias= es.=C2=A0 And peer review is not designed to =E2=80=9Chelp=E2=80=9D new e= ntries =E2=80=93 its is designed to help a journal editor decide what to = do with a paper. So it often serves as an impersonal barrier to entry.=C2= =A0 O=46 course, we cannot dispense with it.=C2=A0 But we should be activ= ely exploring other models.=C2=A0 if this new generation of talented, tho= ughtful, diverse and enterprising young scholars wants to engage in novel= modes of scientific communication, I=E2=80=99m happy to listen and to co= ntribute to these new models. > > > > > > theBob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 1:55=E2=80=AFPM Les Bernstein <lbernstein=40= uchc.edu> wrote: > > > > quote=5Ftype > > > > On 5/31/2023 2:15 PM, Matthew Winn wrote: > > > > > *** Attention: This is an external email. Use caution respondin= g, opening attachments or clicking on links. *** > > > > > There are statements in this thread that cannot go unchallenged= , because they condone and perpetuate harmful ideas that need to end. Spe= cifically: > > > > > 1) =E2=80=9CIf one is not a sufficiently confident and independ= ent thinker such that one can express ideas, arguments, disagreements, et= c. with anyone in the field, regardless of stature, then that is a weakne= ss=E2=80=9D > > > > > This statement ignores the multiple power structures that affec= t the lives and employment of those below the =E2=80=98upper echelon=E2=80= =99 in the field. Expressing an idea involves risk when your position is = precarious. Adapting to and weighing that risk is a key survival strategy= , not a weakness. I have a blind spot for this risk =E2=80=93 not because= I=E2=80=99m so great at science, but because my culture gives me unearne= d respect because of my demographics. =46or people like me (and, I will n= ote, virtually everyone on this thread), we live in a culture that insula= tes us from any sense that our voice doesn=E2=80=99t belong. > > > > > > > > I could not disagree more.=C2=A0 The suggestion that, within our = field, different cultural backgrounds confer more or less ability to have= productive scientific discussions with anyone, regardless of status is, = as I see it, just plain nonsense.=C2=A0 Expressing an idea involves risk=3F= =C2=A0 Really, in our field of auditory science=3F=C2=A0 I can give plent= y of counterexamples to such an assertion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) =E2=80=9Cthink about how such researchers earned such status= .=C2=A0 It was not because they had friends, it was not because people li= ked them.=C2=A0 It was because they established a track-record of contrib= utions that the field, in general, held in very high regard.=E2=80=9D > > > > > This is a self-serving narrative that reflects survivorship bia= s and which ignores everything we know about how people act in real life.= Science is done by humans, who have personal interests, biases, and who = live within a culture where status is built on many layers of privilege. = Every decision we make is filtered by these factors, which allow some peo= ple (like me) to accumulate a variety of advantages at every career stage= , simply because of how they look, who their friends are, and where they = grew up. They are more likely to have papers accepted, to be selected for= podium presentations, to have a job application reviewed, to be intervie= wed, to be hired, to be selected as editors and reviewers, to be elected = to positions of leadership, and to be given favorable treatment in the wo= rkplace. To be taken seriously. If we pretend that these advantages are A= LL due to the scientific merit of one=E2=80=99s work, we are characterizi= ng scientists as some species entirely separate from the rest of humanity= . > > > > Again, theoretical, social drivel.=C2=A0 Lloyd Jeffress, Dave Gre= en, Neal Viemester, Barbara Bohne, and on and on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) =E2=80=9CStature does not count. Everyone should be held to = the very same standard=E2=80=9D > > > > > We all agree that work should not be judged on the basis of who= wrote it. But importantly, the influence of stature doesn=E2=80=99t need= to be explicitly suggested in order to actually take place. Similar to t= he last point, the idea of equal standards and equal treatment is a conve= nient fiction that allows people like me to feel superior because I can a= ttribute my success to my own hard work and merit, even though many facto= rs that led to that success were unearned. > > > > Again, your theoretical musing.=C2=A0 Not the reality in auditory= science that I have seen. > > > > > > > > > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D > > > > > What does this have to do with preprints=3F The point is to con= sider that others have a different set of constraints, and that our defin= itions of merit are tailored to suit those who are already enjoying a wid= e variety of privileges. Consider the forces that lead authors to think t= hat preprints are useful, and also whether you are facing the same expect= ations and constraints that they are. Numerous people have pointed at the= apparent generational divide on this issue - let's figure out why. Gradu= ate admissions and fellowship review increasingly expect a publication re= cord that far exceeds anything that would have been expected of the revie= wers when they were at that same career stage. =46or various reasons, the= timeline of publication is increasingly long. Exacerbating this, it is n= o longer enough to simply conduct a good study; one must also curate a da= ta management and sharing plan that includes open-access data and documen= ted code. One must learn and conduct the latest statistical techniques th= at their advisors never needed to learn, and sift through a much broader = set of literature that includes a lot of garbage. To compete for stable e= mployment, younger scholars need an internet presence and must learn to i= ncorporate inclusive language in their writing, even if that were not par= t of their training. They need to express how their work contributes to t= he reduction of harm in society, despite being advised by some of the peo= ple who are doing the harm. > > > > > > > > None of this, much of which I find to be mere unjustified asserti= on, is an argument for shifting the weight of dissemination of work towar= d non-refereed open access.=C2=A0 By the way, when was it the case that a= solid knowledge of statistical techniques was unnecessary=3F=C2=A0 Hey, = you don't have to wire together analog equipment to generate your signals= =21 > > > > > > > > > > Preprints are not a magical solution that can eliminate the mul= tiple barriers that I described above. But they have tangible value, and = reflect adaptation to a changing academic landscape, rather than reflecti= ng some loss of =E2=80=9Cstandards=E2=80=9D that are designed to protect = those already at the top, and which were established under an entirely di= fferent system of constraints. > > > > > > > > > > Preprints help address the needs for 1) visibility and 2) quick= er feedback on your work from a wider variety of scholars who might not h= ave been invited to review, simply because they were not in the network o= f the associate editor. These factors are often yoked together; the chann= els that spread awareness of a preprint (like Twitter) might also be the = same channels that generate discussion that becomes useful feedback. The = tendency (or need) to use these dissemination channels probably reinforce= s the generational divide on this thread. I assure you that the comments = I've received from people enthusiastic enough to read a preprint have had= meaningful influence and value. And those comments can come from a wider= variety of people whose opinions have been historically discounted. Expe= rienced reviewers will always have a place in our scientific discourse, b= ut to discount the benefit and potential of preprints is to be willfully = detached from our current reality. > > > > > > > > I never said one should not use pre-prints for whatever benefit t= hey can confer. > > > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Leslie R. Bernstein, Ph.D. =7C Professor Emeritus > > > > Depts. of Neuroscience and Surgery (Otolaryngology) =7C UConn Sch= ool of Medicine > > > > 263 =46armington Avenue, =46armington, CT 06030-3401 > > > > Office: 860.679.4622 =7C =46ax: 860.679.2495 > > > > > > > > <> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Matthew Winn, AuD, PhD > > > Associate Professor > > > Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences > > > University of Minnesota --647ff8fa_13750342_9f60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline <html xmlns=3D=22http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml=22> <head> <title></title> </head> <body> <div name=3D=22messageBodySection=22> <div dir=3D=22auto=22>Here=E2=80=99s what chatGPT has to say about arXiv = vs peer review:<br /> <br /> <span style=3D=22color:=23374151;font-family:S=C3=B6hne, ui-sans-serif, s= ystem-ui, -apple-system, Segoe UI, Roboto, Ubuntu, Cantarell, Noto Sans, = sans-serif, Helvetica Neue, Arial, Apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Seg= oe UI Symbol, Noto Color Emoji;font-size: 16px=22>I recognize the value o= f both preprint online archives like arXiv and peer-reviewed publication = in journals. Each has its unique benefits and considerations, and underst= anding their respective values is crucial for disseminating research find= ings effectively.</span><span style=3D=22font-size: 16px=22><br /></span>= <span style=3D=22font-size: 16px=22><br /></span><span style=3D=22color:=23= 374151;font-family:S=C3=B6hne, ui-sans-serif, system-ui, -apple-system, S= egoe UI, Roboto, Ubuntu, Cantarell, Noto Sans, sans-serif, Helvetica Neue= , Arial, Apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol, Noto Color E= moji;font-size: 16px=22>Preprint online archives, such as arXiv, offer se= veral advantages that make them valuable for researchers. =46irstly, they= provide a platform for researchers to share their work with the scientif= ic community quickly. This allows for rapid dissemination of research fin= dings and facilitates collaboration, as fellow researchers can access and= provide feedback on the preprint. This open and transparent approach to = sharing scientific knowledge encourages discussions and the exchange of i= deas, fostering scientific progress.</span><span style=3D=22font-size: 16= px=22><br /></span><span style=3D=22font-size: 16px=22><br /></span><span= style=3D=22color:=23374151;font-family:S=C3=B6hne, ui-sans-serif, system= -ui, -apple-system, Segoe UI, Roboto, Ubuntu, Cantarell, Noto Sans, sans-= serif, Helvetica Neue, Arial, Apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI= Symbol, Noto Color Emoji;font-size: 16px=22>Another significant benefit = of preprint archives is that they offer a chance to receive feedback on r= esearch before formal peer review. This can be particularly useful in ref= ining the work, identifying potential flaws or limitations, and strengthe= ning the overall research design. =46eedback received through the preprin= t process can contribute to improving the research before submitting it t= o a peer-reviewed journal.</span><span style=3D=22font-size: 16px=22><br = /></span><span style=3D=22font-size: 16px=22><br /></span><span style=3D=22= color:=23374151;font-family:S=C3=B6hne, ui-sans-serif, system-ui, -apple-= system, Segoe UI, Roboto, Ubuntu, Cantarell, Noto Sans, sans-serif, Helve= tica Neue, Arial, Apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol, Not= o Color Emoji;font-size: 16px=22>=46urthermore, posting a preprint on an = online archive establishes a clear and early record of priority and intel= lectual ownership. In highly competitive research fields, where multiple = groups might be working on similar projects simultaneously, this can be c= rucial for establishing precedence.</span><span style=3D=22font-size: 16p= x=22><br /></span><span style=3D=22font-size: 16px=22><br /></span><span = style=3D=22color:=23374151;font-family:S=C3=B6hne, ui-sans-serif, system-= ui, -apple-system, Segoe UI, Roboto, Ubuntu, Cantarell, Noto Sans, sans-s= erif, Helvetica Neue, Arial, Apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI = Symbol, Noto Color Emoji;font-size: 16px=22>On the other hand, peer-revie= wed publication in journals remains a vital aspect of scientific research= and academic advancement. Peer review provides a rigorous evaluation pro= cess by experts in the field, ensuring the quality, validity, and reliabi= lity of the research. Through this process, potential flaws, errors, or b= iases can be identified and addressed, resulting in higher-quality public= ations.</span><span style=3D=22font-size: 16px=22><br /></span><span styl= e=3D=22font-size: 16px=22><br /></span><span style=3D=22color:=23374151;f= ont-family:S=C3=B6hne, ui-sans-serif, system-ui, -apple-system, Segoe UI,= Roboto, Ubuntu, Cantarell, Noto Sans, sans-serif, Helvetica Neue, Arial,= Apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol, Noto Color Emoji;fon= t-size: 16px=22>Publishing in reputable peer-reviewed journals also adds = a stamp of approval and credibility to the research. It signifies that th= e work has met the standards of the scientific community and has undergon= e rigorous scrutiny. This validation is particularly important for resear= chers seeking tenure, promotions, or funding, as it carries weight in the= academic community.</span><span style=3D=22font-size: 16px=22><br /></sp= an><span style=3D=22font-size: 16px=22><br /></span><span style=3D=22colo= r:=23374151;font-family:S=C3=B6hne, ui-sans-serif, system-ui, -apple-syst= em, Segoe UI, Roboto, Ubuntu, Cantarell, Noto Sans, sans-serif, Helvetica= Neue, Arial, Apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol, Noto Co= lor Emoji;font-size: 16px=22>Moreover, journals often have wider readersh= ip and visibility than preprint archives, making it more likely that the = research will reach a broader audience. Journal publications are often in= dexed in databases and search engines, which facilitate discoverability a= nd citation by other researchers. This, in turn, can enhance the research= er's reputation, impact, and career progression.</span><span style=3D=22f= ont-size: 16px=22><br /></span><span style=3D=22font-size: 16px=22><br />= </span><span style=3D=22color:=23374151;font-family:S=C3=B6hne, ui-sans-s= erif, system-ui, -apple-system, Segoe UI, Roboto, Ubuntu, Cantarell, Noto= Sans, sans-serif, Helvetica Neue, Arial, Apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emo= ji, Segoe UI Symbol, Noto Color Emoji;font-size: 16px=22>In summary, prep= rint online archives like arXiv offer rapid dissemination, early feedback= , and a transparent platform for sharing research, fostering collaboratio= n and discussion within the scientific community. Peer-reviewed publicati= on in journals, on the other hand, provides a rigorous evaluation process= , validation, credibility, wider readership, and increased visibility. Re= cognizing the value of both avenues, researchers often utilize preprint a= rchives to share early versions of their work while working towards the g= oal of journal publication to receive formal recognition and validation.<= /span><span style=3D=22font-size: 16px=22><br /></span><span style=3D=22f= ont-size: 16px=22><br /></span></div> </div> <div name=3D=22messageSignatureSection=22><br /> <div class=3D=22match=46ont=22>=E2=80=94Brent</div> </div> <div name=3D=22messageReplySection=22>On 6 Jun 2023 at 7:39 PM +1000, Jan= Schnupp <000000e042a1ec30-dmarc-request=40LISTS.MCGILL.CA>, wrote:= <br /> <blockquote type=3D=22cite=22 style=3D=22border-left-color: grey; border-= left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; margin: 5px 5px;padding-left:= 10px;=22> <div dir=3D=22auto=22>I guess if reputation biases peer review as heavily= as the consensus seems to think here, then what does the often pretty ha= rd time I get from my reviewers tell me about my reputation=3F ... =F0=9F= =A4=94=F0=9F=98=9D <div dir=3D=22auto=22><br /></div> <div dir=3D=22auto=22>Jan&=23160;</div> </div> <br /> <div class=3D=22gmail=5Fquote=22> <div dir=3D=22ltr=22 class=3D=22gmail=5Fattr=22>On Tue, 6 Jun 2023, 17:17= Peter Harrison, <<a href=3D=22mailto:pmch2=40cam.ac.uk=22>pmch2=40cam= .ac.uk</a>> wrote:<br /></div> <blockquote class=3D=22gmail=5Fquote=22 style=3D=22margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bord= er-left:1px =23ccc solid;padding-left:1ex=22> <div dir=3D=22ltr=22> <div style=3D=22font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:11pt;c= olor:rgb(0,0,0)=22><span style=3D=22font-size:11pt;margin:0px;color:black= ;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)=22>Dear all,</span> <div style=3D=22font-size:11pt;margin:0px;color:black;background-color:rg= b(255,255,255)=22><br /></div> <div style=3D=22font-size:11pt;margin:0px;color:black;background-color:rg= b(255,255,255)=22>Several colleagues have mentioned how peer review is un= duly biased by the reputation of the authors/institutions. I agree that t= his is an important problem, but it's only fair to observe that it applie= s to preprints too. In a world where we don't have time to read every pre= print, many people will still end up using imperfect proxies for deciding= what to read, such as the reputation of the authors/institutions. In the= absence of a journal's mark of approval, these imperfect proxies could g= row more influential, not less influential.</div> <div style=3D=22font-size:11pt;margin:0px;color:black;background-color:rg= b(255,255,255)=22><br /></div> <div style=3D=22font-size:11pt;margin:0px;color:black;background-color:rg= b(255,255,255)=22>Best wishes</div> <span style=3D=22font-size:11pt;margin:0px;color:black;background-color:r= gb(255,255,255)=22>Peter</span><br /></div> <div id=3D=22m=5F-848478907251340195appendonsend=22></div> <hr style=3D=22display:inline-block;width:98%=22 /> <div id=3D=22m=5F-848478907251340195divRply=46wdMsg=22 dir=3D=22ltr=22><f= ont face=3D=22Calibri, sans-serif=22 style=3D=22font-size:11pt=22 color=3D= =22=23000000=22><b>=46rom:</b> AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception= <<a href=3D=22mailto:AUDITORY=40LISTS.MCGILL.CA=22 target=3D=22=5Fbla= nk=22 rel=3D=22noreferrer=22>AUDITORY=40LISTS.MCGILL.CA</a>> on behalf= of Helia Relano Iborra <<a href=3D=22mailto:0000017f74f788f8-dmarc-re= quest=40LISTS.MCGILL.CA=22 target=3D=22=5Fblank=22 rel=3D=22noreferrer=22= >0000017f74f788f8-dmarc-request=40LISTS.MCGILL.CA</a>><br /> <b>Sent:</b> 06 June 2023 09:21<br /> <b>To:</b> <a href=3D=22mailto:AUDITORY=40LISTS.MCGILL.CA=22 target=3D=22= =5Fblank=22 rel=3D=22noreferrer=22>AUDITORY=40LISTS.MCGILL.CA</a> <<a = href=3D=22mailto:AUDITORY=40LISTS.MCGILL.CA=22 target=3D=22=5Fblank=22 re= l=3D=22noreferrer=22>AUDITORY=40LISTS.MCGILL.CA</a>><br /> <b>Subject:</b> Re: =5BAUDITORY=5D =5BExternal=5D Re: =5BAUDITORY=5D arXi= v web of trust</font> <div>&=23160;</div> </div> <div lang=3D=22DA=22 link=3D=22blue=22 vlink=3D=22purple=22 style=3D=22wo= rd-wrap:break-word=22 xml:lang=3D=22DA=22> <div> <p><span>Dear Brian, all,</span></p> <p><span>&=23160;</span></p> <p><span lang=3D=22EN-US=22 xml:lang=3D=22EN-US=22>Thank you for a very e= nriching discussion. I just wanted to counter Brian=E2=80=99s last email,= regarding the neutrality of peer review. There is extensive evidence of = =E2=80=9Cstatus bias=E2=80=9D in the peer-review system in studies compar= ing single-blind vs double-blind reviews.</span> <span>E.g. Huber et al.<= /span> <span lang=3D=22EN-US=22 xml:lang=3D=22EN-US=22>(2022) <a href=3D=22= https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2205779119=22 target=3D=22=5Fblank=22= rel=3D=22noreferrer=22>https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2205779119<= /a> or Blank (1991) <a href=3D=22https://www.jstor.org/stable/2006906=22 = target=3D=22=5Fblank=22 rel=3D=22noreferrer=22>https://www.jstor.org/stab= le/2006906</a>. No system (or person) is free of bias, unfortunately. I t= hink recognizing that these biases exist and being aware of them when we = are reviewing manuscripts can only make us better reviewers.</span></p> <p><span lang=3D=22EN-US=22 xml:lang=3D=22EN-US=22>&=23160;</span></p> <p><span lang=3D=22EN-US=22 xml:lang=3D=22EN-US=22>Best,</span></p> <p><span lang=3D=22EN-US=22 xml:lang=3D=22EN-US=22>Helia.</span></p> <p><span lang=3D=22EN-US=22 xml:lang=3D=22EN-US=22>&=23160;</span></p> <p style=3D=22line-height:12.75pt=22><span lang=3D=22EN-US=22 style=3D=22= font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif=22 xml:lang=3D=22= EN-US=22>&=23160;</span></p> <table border=3D=220=22 cellspacing=3D=220=22 cellpadding=3D=220=22 width= =3D=22400=22 style=3D=22width:300.0pt=22> <tbody> <tr> <td width=3D=22400=22 style=3D=22width:300.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm=22= > <table border=3D=220=22 cellspacing=3D=220=22 cellpadding=3D=220=22 width= =3D=22400=22 style=3D=22width:300.0pt;border-collapse:collapse=22> <tbody> <tr> <td width=3D=2250=22 valign=3D=22top=22 style=3D=22width:37.5pt;padding:0= cm 0cm 0cm 0cm=22> <table border=3D=220=22 cellspacing=3D=220=22 cellpadding=3D=220=22 width= =3D=2250=22 style=3D=22width:37.5pt=22> <tbody> <tr> <td width=3D=2250=22 valign=3D=22top=22 style=3D=22width:37.5pt;padding:3= .0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm=22> <p><></p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> <td width=3D=22350=22 valign=3D=22top=22 style=3D=22width:262.5pt;padding= :0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm=22> <table border=3D=220=22 cellspacing=3D=220=22 cellpadding=3D=220=22 width= =3D=22350=22 style=3D=22width:262.5pt;border-collapse:collapse=22> <tbody> <tr> <td width=3D=22350=22 style=3D=22width:262.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm=22= > <p style=3D=22line-height:120%=22><b><span style=3D=22font-size:12.0pt;li= ne-height:120%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black=22>He= lia Rela=C3=B1o Iborra</span></b></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width=3D=22350=22 style=3D=22width:262.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm=22= > <p style=3D=22line-height:12.75pt=22><span style=3D=22font-size:8.5pt;fon= t-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black=22>Postdoc</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width=3D=22350=22 style=3D=22width:262.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm=22= > <p style=3D=22line-height:12.75pt=22><span lang=3D=22EN-US=22 style=3D=22= font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black=22 x= ml:lang=3D=22EN-US=22>Hearing Systems Section</span></p> <p style=3D=22line-height:12.75pt=22><span lang=3D=22EN-US=22 style=3D=22= font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black=22 x= ml:lang=3D=22EN-US=22>Department of Health Technology</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width=3D=22350=22 style=3D=22width:262.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm=22= > <p style=3D=22line-height:12.75pt=22><span style=3D=22font-size:8.5pt;fon= t-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black=22><a href=3D=22mailto:= heliaib=40dtu.dk=22 target=3D=22=5Fblank=22 rel=3D=22noreferrer=22><span = style=3D=22color:black=22>heliaib=40dtu.dk</span></a></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width=3D=22350=22 style=3D=22width:262.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm=22= > <p style=3D=22line-height:12.75pt=22><span style=3D=22font-size:8.5pt;fon= t-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black=22>=C3=98rsteds Plads</= span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width=3D=22350=22 style=3D=22width:262.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm=22= > <p style=3D=22line-height:12.75pt=22><span style=3D=22font-size:8.5pt;fon= t-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black=22>Building 352</span><= /p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width=3D=22350=22 style=3D=22width:262.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm=22= > <p style=3D=22line-height:12.75pt=22><span style=3D=22font-size:8.5pt;fon= t-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black=22>2800&=23160;Kgs. Lyn= gby</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width=3D=22350=22 style=3D=22width:262.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm=22= > <p style=3D=22line-height:12.75pt=22><span style=3D=22font-size:8.5pt;fon= t-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black=22><a href=3D=22https:/= /www.dtu.dk/english=22 target=3D=22=5Fblank=22 rel=3D=22noreferrer=22><sp= an style=3D=22color:black=22>www.dtu.dk/english</span></a></span></p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>&=23160;</p> <p><span lang=3D=22EN-US=22 xml:lang=3D=22EN-US=22>&=23160;</span></p> <div> <div style=3D=22border:none;border-top:solid =23e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0p= t 0cm 0cm 0cm=22> <p><b><span lang=3D=22EN-US=22 xml:lang=3D=22EN-US=22>=46rom:</span></b> = <span lang=3D=22EN-US=22 xml:lang=3D=22EN-US=22>AUDITORY - Research in Au= ditory Perception <<a href=3D=22mailto:AUDITORY=40LISTS.MCGILL.CA=22 t= arget=3D=22=5Fblank=22 rel=3D=22noreferrer=22>AUDITORY=40LISTS.MCGILL.CA<= /a>> <b>On Behalf Of</b> Brian =46G Katz (SU)<br /> <b>Sent:</b> 6. juni 2023 09:27<br /> <b>To:</b> <a href=3D=22mailto:AUDITORY=40LISTS.MCGILL.CA=22 target=3D=22= =5Fblank=22 rel=3D=22noreferrer=22>AUDITORY=40LISTS.MCGILL.CA</a><br /> <b>Subject:</b> Re: =5BAUDITORY=5D =5BExternal=5D Re: =5BAUDITORY=5D arXi= v web of trust</span></p> </div> </div> <p><span lang=3D=22EN-US=22 xml:lang=3D=22EN-US=22>&=23160;</span></p> <div> <p>Dear Bob, et al,</p> </div> <div> <p>&=23160;</p> </div> <div> <p>I feel obliged to reply to some serious statements made in recent post= s. While i think there is little doubt that numerous bias elements (privi= leges of various sorts=22 are present in career evolutions, recruitment c= ommittees, promotions, be them academic or corporate, I must return to th= e discussion to the topic at hand, in the broad sense, of the importance = of peer-review.&=23160;</p> </div> <div> <p>&=23160;</p> </div> <div> <p>As a regular reviewer in various journals (and fields of acoustics) wh= at is judged is the work on the page, no more and no less. No free rides = are given to authors of high reputation (sometime more scrutiny), nor pen= alties to young unknowns or unrepresented countries (sometimes more flexi= bility is given). If the arguement for publication is unpersuasive, it is= solely on the merit of the presentation of the work. I say it this way b= ecause again it is only what is on the page that is reviewed. The work it= self may be of high standards, but a work is reviewed by what is stated, = not what is intended. As an Associate Editor, the same is true. Specific = knowledge of the author is really only needed to assure lack of direct co= nflicts of interest in selecting reviewers. I have never considered the b= ackground,&=23160; academic or career history of an author in accepting o= r rejecting a manuscript. I would even go so far as to say if one conside= rs these elements in one's reviews they should probably recuse themselves= from such benevolent activities to the community.&=23160;</p> </div> <div> <p>&=23160;</p> </div> <div> <p>=46inally, returning to the question of arXiv and preprints, where thi= s all started, I don't think anyone came out against them on the whole, b= ut they should be taken for what they are, and no more. They are a scient= ific blog or a conference proceeding. They do not hold the same value, or= represent the same rigor of critique, that a journal article has passed.= Thie difference is clear. However, it is only really relevant in a few c= ircumstances: as a substantive citation in another journal article, in an= academic/research career application/review, or a project proposal (a ve= rsion of the previous point). If one doesn't require these elements, and = that is a choice, then one isn't limited by the means one chooses to diss= eminate one's work. No one has critiqued the use of arxiv and the like, p= er se,&=23160; but if one is competing on the quality of one's work, the = process of peer-review is the widely accepted passage for some semblance = of quality, for which no other alternative currently exists. A review com= mittee cannot be expected to read every article, let alone the comments s= ection, and be required to form an opinion.&=23160;</p> </div> <div> <p>&=23160;</p> </div> <div> <p>This does not say the process cannot be improved, and that is also the= motivation for journal quality classifications and the exclusion of some= journals from being =22acceptable=22 is those situations. Such rapid pub= lication and limited review journals are more akin to arXiv than a reputa= ble journal, though with fees, and rightly so with regards to scientific = scrutiny. One is free to use them for what they are, but one should not m= ake claims that they are anything more.</p> </div> <div> <p>&=23160;</p> </div> <div> <p>At least, that is my perspective.</p> </div> <div id=3D=22m=5F-848478907251340195x=5Fcomposer=5Fsignature=22> <p>--</p> <div> <p>Brian =46G Katz</p> </div> <div> <p>Equipe LAM : Lutheries Acoustique Musique</p> </div> <div> <p>Sorbonne Universit=C3=A9, CNRS, Institut =E2=88=82'Alembert</p> </div> </div> <div> <p>&=23160;</p> </div> <div> <p>&=23160;</p> </div> <div> <p><span style=3D=22color:black=22>-------- Original message --------</sp= an></p> </div> <div> <p><span style=3D=22color:black=22>=46rom: =22McMurray, Bob=22 <<a hre= f=3D=22mailto:bob-mcmurray=40UIOWA.EDU=22 target=3D=22=5Fblank=22 rel=3D=22= noreferrer=22>bob-mcmurray=40UIOWA.EDU</a>></span></p> </div> <div> <p><span style=3D=22color:black=22>Date: 6/6/23 06:09 (GMT+01:00)</span><= /p> </div> <div> <p><span style=3D=22color:black=22>To: <a href=3D=22mailto:AUDITORY=40LIS= TS.MCGILL.CA=22 target=3D=22=5Fblank=22 rel=3D=22noreferrer=22>AUDITORY=40= LISTS.MCGILL.CA</a></span></p> </div> <div> <p><span style=3D=22color:black=22>Subject: Re: =5BAUDITORY=5D =5BExterna= l=5D Re: =5BAUDITORY=5D arXiv web of trust</span></p> </div> <div> <p><span style=3D=22color:black=22>&=23160;</span></p> </div> <div> <p>Hi Colleagues</p> <div> <div> <p>&=23160;</p> <p>I=E2=80=99ve been watching from the wings on this discussion as I thin= k our field is in a real point of flux with respect to scientific publish= ing and communication, and I don=E2=80=99t think I know what=E2=80=99s be= st any more. &=23160;&=23160;Its been fun to watch a very healthy and vig= orous conversation unfold amonst my esteemed colleagues =E2=80=93 both ju= nior and senior =E2=80=93 and I=E2=80=99ve learned a lot.</p> <p>&=23160;</p> <p>However, Matt (and Deniz) made a very powerful point, that I felt the = need to weigh in on.&=23160; They argue that the very nature of scientifi= c communication is pervaded by issues power, positionality and discrimina= tion. I don=E2=80=99t think I realized this till recently (perhaps I was = an Eagle in that cartoon), but they are right. It=E2=80=99s important.</p= > <p>&=23160;</p> <p>Les, I respect your point of view.&=23160; We should be having these o= pen and objective conversations and we should strive for that.&=23160; Bu= t we also have to recognize that this is an aspirational point of view.&=23= 160; In my view, the rhetoric of science is not objective. Its persuasive= .&=23160; A scientific discovery from my lab is not a fact until I convin= ce the scientific community to believe it (or at least convince Reviewers= 1,2 and 3).&=23160; The rules of science =E2=80=93 statistical and metho= dological norms, peer review, and the like -- are really designed to ensu= re that this persuasion is all geared to some mutually acceptable norms o= f objectivity.&=23160; It often works and there=E2=80=99s not much better= .</p> <p>&=23160;</p> <p>But fundamentally this is still a persuasive enterprise (as it should = be).&=23160; And fundamentally, some people =E2=80=93 by virtue of their = station and background =E2=80=93 are going to be in a better place to per= suade their colleagues than others.&=23160; We commonly associate these i= ssues of discrimination and positionality with things like race, religion= and gender.&=23160; And indeed these things matter =E2=80=93 just look a= t the disparities among the medalists of the ASA and you can see for your= self.</p> <p>&=23160;</p> <p>But a good friend of mine recently showed me how these kind of factors= extend all throughout academia.&=23160; Are some fields privileged=3F&=23= 160; Are hearing scientists more likely to discount a finding from a ling= uist or a social scientist than someone who is solidly situated in hearin= g science=3F&=23160; What about a finding from a small clinical populatio= n (a =E2=80=9Cniche=E2=80=9D field) or an obscure auditory phenomena vs. = as opposed to a finding based on the core =E2=80=9Cmodal=E2=80=9D NH adul= t in a sound proof booth=3F&=23160; Are we more likely to take a finding = seriously if it was generated by one of the top universities (in our fiel= d) than a second tier state university=3F&=23160; Or from a new scholar t= hat was trained by one of the best vs. an emerging scholar who came to th= e field more independently=3F&=23160; What about a person who is changing= fields =E2=80=93 migrating, for example, from a field like cognitive sci= ence to audiology or hearing science=3F&=23160; What about clinical crede= ntialing=3F&=23160; Does that help or harm our cases=3F</p> <p>&=23160;</p> <p>All of these things have nothing to do with the objective argument tha= t is being made and the quality of the data used to support it.&=23160; B= ut we all must admit that they do change how much credence we are likely = to give a discussion or a paper (and each of us may weigh these different= ly).&=23160; Sometimes these are useful heuristics =E2=80=93 if the metho= ds aren=E2=80=99t clear, but you know how a person was trained, it may be= easier to trust that the experiments were done right.&=23160; But someti= mes this is just downright discriminatory, like when we discount contribu= tions from outside what we perceive as the core field.</p> <p>&=23160;</p> <p>But how does this impact scientific publishing=3F</p> <p>&=23160;</p> <p>Matt makes the valuable point that as our field opens up to new viewpo= ints and new participants, the view from those people may be very differe= nt than the view from the people at the top.&=23160; We should listen. Pe= ople do struggle to gain entry to this field.&=23160; I certainly did whe= n I began working in hearing science, despite my training at a very good = cognitive science program.</p> <p>&=23160;</p> <p>Peer review is part of the problem.&=23160; It can amplify these biase= s.&=23160; And peer review is not designed to =E2=80=9Chelp=E2=80=9D new = entries =E2=80=93 its is designed to help a journal editor decide what to= do with a paper. So it often serves as an impersonal barrier to entry.&=23= 160; O=46 course, we cannot dispense with it.&=23160; But we should be ac= tively exploring other models.&=23160; if this new generation of talented= , thoughtful, diverse and enterprising young scholars wants to engage in = novel modes of scientific communication, I=E2=80=99m happy to listen and = to contribute to these new models.</p> <p>&=23160;</p> <p>theBob</p> <p>&=23160;</p> <p>&=23160;</p> <p>&=23160;</p> <p>&=23160;</p> <p>&=23160;</p> <p>&=23160;</p> </div> </div> <p>&=23160;</p> <div> <div> <p>On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 1:55=E2=80=AFPM Les Bernstein <<a href=3D=22= mailto:lbernstein=40uchc.edu=22 target=3D=22=5Fblank=22 rel=3D=22noreferr= er=22>lbernstein=40uchc.edu</a>> wrote:</p> </div> <blockquote style=3D=22border:none;border-left:solid =23cccccc 1.0pt;padd= ing:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm= ;margin-bottom:5.0pt=22> <div> <div> <p>On 5/31/2023 2:15 PM, Matthew Winn wrote:</p> </div> <blockquote style=3D=22margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt=22> <div> <p align=3D=22center=22 style=3D=22text-align:center;background:=23d5eaff= =22><span style=3D=22font-size:12.0pt;color:red=22>*** Attention: This is= an external email. Use caution responding, opening attachments or clicki= ng on links. ***</span></p> </div> <div> <div> <div> <p>There are statements in this thread that cannot go unchallenged, becau= se they condone and perpetuate harmful ideas that need to end. Specifical= ly:<br /> 1) =E2=80=9CIf one is not a sufficiently confident and independent thinke= r such that one can express ideas, arguments, disagreements, etc. with an= yone in the field, regardless of stature, then that is a weakness=E2=80=9D= <br /> This statement ignores the multiple power structures that affect the live= s and employment of those below the =E2=80=98upper echelon=E2=80=99 in th= e field. Expressing an idea involves risk when your position is precariou= s. Adapting to and weighing that risk is a key survival strategy, not a w= eakness. I have a blind spot for this risk =E2=80=93 not because I=E2=80=99= m so great at science, but because my culture gives me unearned respect b= ecause of my demographics. =46or people like me (and, I will note, virtua= lly everyone on this thread), we live in a culture that insulates us from= any sense that our voice doesn=E2=80=99t belong.</p> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p style=3D=22margin-bottom:12.0pt=22><br /> <span style=3D=22font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-= serif=22>I could not disagree more.&=23160; The suggestion that, within o= ur field, different cultural backgrounds confer more or less ability to h= ave productive scientific discussions with anyone, regardless of status i= s, as I see it, just plain nonsense.&=23160; Expressing an idea involves = risk=3F&=23160; Really, in our field of auditory science=3F&=23160; I can= give plenty of counterexamples to such an assertion.</span></p> <blockquote style=3D=22margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt=22> <div> <div> <div> <p><br /> <br /> 2) =E2=80=9Cthink about how such researchers earned such status.&=23160; = It was not because they had friends, it was not because people liked them= .&=23160; It was because they established a track-record of contributions= that the field, in general, held in very high regard.=E2=80=9D<br /> This is a self-serving narrative that reflects survivorship bias and whic= h ignores everything we know about how people act in real life. Science i= s done by humans, who have personal interests, biases, and who live withi= n a culture where status is built on many layers of privilege. Every deci= sion we make is filtered by these factors, which allow some people (like = me) to accumulate a variety of advantages at every career stage, simply b= ecause of how they look, who their friends are, and where they grew up. T= hey are more likely to have papers accepted, to be selected for podium pr= esentations, to have a job application reviewed, to be interviewed, to be= hired, to be selected as editors and reviewers, to be elected to positio= ns of leadership, and to be given favorable treatment in the workplace. T= o be taken seriously. If we pretend that these advantages are ALL due to = the scientific merit of one=E2=80=99s work, we are characterizing scienti= sts as some species entirely separate from the rest of humanity.</p> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p style=3D=22margin-bottom:12.0pt=22><span style=3D=22font-size:10.0pt;f= ont-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif=22>Again, theoretical, social= drivel.&=23160; Lloyd Jeffress, Dave Green, Neal Viemester, Barbara Bohn= e, and on and on.&=23160;</span></p> <blockquote style=3D=22margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt=22> <div> <div> <div> <p><br /> <br /> 3) =E2=80=9CStature does not count. Everyone should be held to the very s= ame standard=E2=80=9D<br /> We all agree that work should not be judged on the basis of who wrote it.= But importantly, the influence of stature doesn=E2=80=99t need to be exp= licitly suggested in order to actually take place. Similar to the last po= int, the idea of equal standards and equal treatment is a convenient fict= ion that allows people like me to feel superior because I can attribute m= y success to my own hard work and merit, even though many factors that le= d to that success were unearned.</p> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p style=3D=22margin-bottom:12.0pt=22><span style=3D=22font-size:10.0pt;f= ont-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif=22>Again, your theoretical mu= sing.&=23160; Not the reality in auditory science that I have seen.</span= ></p> <blockquote style=3D=22margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt=22> <div> <div> <div> <p><br /> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D<br /> What does this have to do with preprints=3F The point is to consider that= others have a different set of constraints, and that our definitions of = merit are tailored to suit those who are already enjoying a wide variety = of privileges. Consider the forces that lead authors to think that prepri= nts are useful, and also whether you are facing the same expectations and= constraints that they are. Numerous people have pointed at the apparent = generational divide on this issue - let's figure out why. Graduate admiss= ions and fellowship review increasingly expect a publication record that = far exceeds anything that would have been expected of the reviewers when = they were at that same career stage. =46or various reasons, the timeline = of publication is increasingly long. Exacerbating this, it is no longer e= nough to simply conduct a good study; one must also curate a data managem= ent and sharing plan that includes open-access data and documented code. = One must learn and conduct the latest statistical techniques that their a= dvisors never needed to learn, and sift through a much broader set of lit= erature that includes a lot of garbage. To compete for stable employment,= younger scholars need an internet presence and must learn to incorporate= inclusive language in their writing, even if that were not part of their= training. They need to express how their work contributes to the reducti= on of harm in society, despite being advised by some of the people who ar= e doing the harm.</p> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p style=3D=22margin-bottom:12.0pt=22><br /> <span style=3D=22font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-= serif=22>None of this, much of which I find to be mere unjustified assert= ion, is an argument for shifting the weight of dissemination of work towa= rd non-refereed open access.&=23160; By the way, when was it the case tha= t a solid knowledge of statistical techniques was unnecessary=3F&=23160; = Hey, you don't have to wire together analog equipment to generate your si= gnals=21</span></p> <blockquote style=3D=22margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt=22> <div> <div> <div> <p><br /> Preprints are not a magical solution that can eliminate the multiple barr= iers that I described above. But they have tangible value, and reflect ad= aptation to a changing academic landscape, rather than reflecting some lo= ss of =E2=80=9Cstandards=E2=80=9D that are designed to protect those alre= ady at the top, and which were established under an entirely different sy= stem of constraints.</p> </div> <div> <p>&=23160;<br /> Preprints help address the needs for 1) visibility and 2) quicker feedbac= k on your work from a wider variety of scholars who might not have been i= nvited to review, simply because they were not in the network of the asso= ciate editor. These factors are often yoked together; the channels that s= pread awareness of a preprint (like Twitter) might also be the same chann= els that generate discussion that becomes useful feedback. The tendency (= or need) to use these dissemination channels probably reinforces the gene= rational divide on this thread. I assure you that the comments I've recei= ved from people enthusiastic enough to read a preprint have had meaningfu= l influence and value. And those comments can come from a wider variety o= f people whose opinions have been historically discounted. Experienced re= viewers will always have a place in our scientific discourse, but to disc= ount the benefit and potential of preprints is to be willfully detached f= rom our current reality.</p> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p style=3D=22margin-bottom:12.0pt=22><span style=3D=22font-size:10.0pt;f= ont-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif=22><br /> I never said one should not use pre-prints for whatever benefit they can = confer.</span></p> <blockquote style=3D=22margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt=22> <div> <div> <div> <p><br /> Matt</p> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p style=3D=22margin-bottom:12.0pt=22>&=23160;</p> <div> <p>--</p> <div> <div> <p><b>Leslie R. Bernstein, Ph.D. =7C</b> Professor Emeritus</p> <div> <div> <div> <div> <p>Depts. of Neuroscience and Surgery (Otolaryngology) =7C UConn School o= f Medicine<br /> 263 =46armington Avenue, =46armington, CT 06030-3401<br /> Office: 860.679.4622 =7C =46ax: 860.679.2495<br /> <br /> <></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> </div> <p><br clear=3D=22all=22 /></p> <div> <p>&=23160;</p> </div> <p><span>--</span></p> <div> <div> <div> <div> <p>Matthew Winn, AuD, PhD</p> <div> <p>Associate Professor</p> </div> <div> <p>Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences</p> </div> <div> <p>University of Minnesota</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote> </div> </body> </html> --647ff8fa_13750342_9f60--