PubPeer has received the 2024 Einstein Foundation Award. This recognition celebrates the contributions of our community to scientific discourse. https://award.einsteinfoundation.de/award-winners-finalists/recipients-2024/pubpeer
This award provides a financial boost that we’re reinvesting back into the platform and its users. See below:
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from PubPeer@mastodon.social
One of the biggest issues facing science today is evaluating research based on journal name. This shortcut:
Encourages scientists to "tidy up" findings to fit journal expectations.
Stifles open-access publishing and innovative models.
Promotes papermill articles whose "authors" chase citations but hope no one ever reads the nonsense in the article.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from PubPeer@mastodon.social
Although progress is being made, evaluators worldwide still rely heavily on publications in high-impact factor journals. It’s a quick shortcut for assessing research. We, as scientists, have not offered them an alternative.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from PubPeer@mastodon.social
If our community consistently evaluated work based on its quality—not its journal name—we could reward rigorous, reproducible research. With a critical mass of such evaluations, even the most entrenched evaluation committees would find it hard to ignore.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from PubPeer@mastodon.social
It’s time for scientists to take the lead in defining the value of research, not journal metrics.
This shift could:
Free scientists to publish where and how they want.
Diminish incentives for questionable practices to pad CVs.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from PubPeer@mastodon.social
PubPeer has become the reference platform whenever there are doubts about the integrity of a publication. However, many researchers are sitting on knowledge about scientific issues in publications in their field. That expert analysis is not being shared and is not helping the community. We want to encourage you to share that information on PubPeer.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from PubPeer@mastodon.social
And now for the big announcement:
While many of our plans for the award funds will take time to implement, one idea can start immediately.
To thank our users and encourage scientific debate, we’re introducing $1,000 rewards for selected PubPeer comments!
Yes students and postdocs, you read that right: $1000
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from PubPeer@mastodon.social
FAQs
What are the criteria? Comments providing significant new scientific insight into a publication.
Who is eligible? Anybody not connected to the PubPeer Foundation.
How frequent are the rewards? We're aiming for one per month.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from PubPeer@mastodon.social
FAQs (cont.)
How are winners chosen? Our team will select standout contributions.
Can anonymous comments win? Yes, but the commenter will need to identify themselves to us to receive their prize.
Got suggestions? Signal great comments to us here or via email.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from PubPeer@mastodon.social
Your journal club could also win. Whether you want to represent your club or create a shared account, we’d love to see your insights! (just send us an email if you'd like to create a shared account for your journal club)
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from PubPeer@mastodon.social
Thanks again to @Einstein_Berlin for making this possible.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from PubPeer@mastodon.social This content has been proxied by September (ba2dc).Proxy Information
text/gemini