Is your lab doing code reviews? I'd like to learn from your experiences and practices!

In our teams, we're establishing internal peer-reviews of our research software. Our focus is on the correctness of our "one-off" analysis scripts that our results are based on. Because of that, the usual, patch-centered review processes don't quite work, nor does the tooling on the Git forges, as they only work for Git diffs, not the "finished" script.

Please also let me know about any practical procedures and materials that explain how to organize and document such reviews. So far, I've found stuff from the software industry, including the "IEEE Standard for Software Reviews
and Audits", but that's very abstract and not easy to translate into the context of small teams and projects like ours, in the behavioral and psychological sciences...

#academia , #software , #peerReview , #academicchatter

So by this time, my energy and good intentions are already drained. I am doing everyone a favor - for free -, but why is this still so hard in 2026? Why can't we just log in with our ORCID number? One password to rule them all. #Academia #PeerReview

a woman wearing glasses is sit...

More benefits of #OpenPeerReview:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157725001221

When they know their reports will be made public, referees make them longer, clearer, more informative, and more constructive in suggesting improvements. And btw, reports by women are better in these respects than reports by men.

#Gender #PeerReview #ScholComm

More benefits of #OpenPeerReview:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157725001221

When they know their reports will be made public, referees make them longer, clearer, more informative, and more constructive in suggesting improvements. And btw, reports by women are better in these respects than reports by men.

#Gender #PeerReview #ScholComm

#OpenRxiv just added an #AI #PeerReview feature for #preprints on #bioRxiv and #medRxiv. At the moment, they're using the #qedscience tool.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03909-5

The bioRxiv announcement makes clear that AI review is optional for authors and that authors might be able to choose from other AI tools in the future.
https://connect.biorxiv.org/news/2025/11/04/qed_review_tool

PS: My experiments lead me to think that AI isn't good enough to do peer review yet -- even if (1) it's getting better, (2) it can already help human reviewers, and (3) many human reviewers are worse. Journals that allow it too large a role are abdicating their responsibility and might be deceiving authors and readers. Referees who give it too large a role are abdicating their responsibility and might be deceiving journals, authors, and readers. If you lean in the same direction, let me suggest that these objections don't carry over to preprint servers making AI review an #FWIW option for authors. This kind of AI review doesn't pretend to be more than it is. When it happens, it's a voluntary decision by authors. Of course authors could have gotten AI feedback on their own, with the AI tools of their choice, and without the preprint-server mediation. But giving them another option for the same kind of feedback is harmless and convenient. Moreover, it creates a training ground to monitor the quality and improvement of the AI tools.

#OpenRxiv just added an #AI #PeerReview feature for #preprints on #bioRxiv and #medRxiv. At the moment, they're using the #qedscience tool.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03909-5

The bioRxiv announcement makes clear that AI review is optional for authors and that authors might be able to choose from other AI tools in the future.
https://connect.biorxiv.org/news/2025/11/04/qed_review_tool

PS: My experiments lead me to think that AI isn't good enough to do peer review yet -- even if (1) it's getting better, (2) it can already help human reviewers, and (3) many human reviewers are worse. Journals that allow it too large a role are abdicating their responsibility and might be deceiving authors and readers. Referees who give it too large a role are abdicating their responsibility and might be deceiving journals, authors, and readers. If you lean in the same direction, let me suggest that these objections don't carry over to preprint servers making AI review an #FWIW option for authors. This kind of AI review doesn't pretend to be more than it is. When it happens, it's a voluntary decision by authors. Of course authors could have gotten AI feedback on their own, with the AI tools of their choice, and without the preprint-server mediation. But giving them another option for the same kind of feedback is harmless and convenient. Moreover, it creates a training ground to monitor the quality and improvement of the AI tools.

Did you know you can read the peer reviews for all papers published in eLife?

We're on a mission to make publishing more transparent. Take a look at the #PeerReview tabs of our latest articles or learn about what we're doing for research communication: https://elifesciences.org/about/?utm_source=mastodon&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic

Did you know you can read the peer reviews for all papers published in eLife?

We're on a mission to make publishing more transparent. Take a look at the #PeerReview tabs of our latest articles or learn about what we're doing for research communication: https://elifesciences.org/about/?utm_source=mastodon&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic

Mit #peerreview in einem renommierten Journal erschienen:

SARS-CoV-2 verursacht zwar kein HIV/AIDS, aber seine Fähigkeit, Immunfunktionsstörungen hervorzurufen – einschließlich T-Zell-Depletion und -Dysfunktion, erhöhter Anfälligkeit für Infektionen, einschließlich opportunistischer Infektionen, beschleunigter biologischer Alterung, neurologischer und systemischer Schäden – bietet Parallelen zu AIDS im breiteren immunologischen Kontext.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773065425001464

#corona #hiv #longCovid

Update. _Nature Structural & Molecular Biology_ is "now offering all [its] reviewers the opportunity to invite an early career researcher to formally co-review manuscripts with them."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41594-025-01727-x

#ECRs #PeerReview #ScholComm

Wow... I was just pointed to this paper
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2024.104081
and its retraction
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2024.104081

Want to read the first sentence of the introduction together with me?
"Certainly, here is a possible introduction for your topic: Lithiummetal batteries are..."

What the...
This passed #peerreview in a journal with IF=6.3 ?!

#science #publishing #ai #slop #bullshit #researchethics #openscience #misconduct #misconductsconduct #elsevier #journal

Wow... I was just pointed to this paper
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2024.104081
and its retraction
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2024.104081

Want to read the first sentence of the introduction together with me?
"Certainly, here is a possible introduction for your topic: Lithiummetal batteries are..."

What the...
This passed #peerreview in a journal with IF=6.3 ?!

#science #publishing #ai #slop #bullshit #researchethics #openscience #misconduct #misconductsconduct #elsevier #journal

Update. Here's how #arXiv is dealing with a similar problem in computer science.
https://blog.arxiv.org/2025/10/31/attention-authors-updated-practice-for-review-articles-and-position-papers-in-arxiv-cs-category/

"Before being considered for submission to arXiv’s #CS category, review articles and position papers must now be accepted at a journal or a conference and complete successful peer review…In the past few years, arXiv has been flooded with papers. Generative #AI / #LLMs have added to this flood by making papers – especially papers not introducing new research results – fast and easy to write. While categories across arXiv have all seen a major increase in submissions, it’s particularly pronounced in arXiv’s CS category."

#PeerReview #Postprints #Preprints #ScholComm

"More than 20% of chemistry researchers have deliberately added information they believe to be incorrect into their manuscripts during the peer review process, in order to get their papers published."
https://cen.acs.org/policy/publishing/One-five-chemists-deliberately-added/103/web/2025/10

* Primary source
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08989621.2025.2564106
(#paywalled)

#AddedValue #Chemistry #PeerReview #Reviewer2 #ScholComm