instagram story viewer > #PeerReview

#PeerReview

Posts
Everyone can write a scientific paper with AI now. So who's checking it? 🧪 During my PhD in physics I really didn't like peer review: months of waiting and chasing publications. But publications add scrutiny to science, and in the age of AI slop that matters more than ever: 📄 under $15 to write a full paper with an AI Scientist 🤖 199 fully AI-written papers submitted to ICLR 2026 ✅ 1 of 3 AI-written papers passed a workshop review 📝 1 in 5 ICLR 2026 reviews written fully by AI 👻 100 made-up citations found in 51 accepted NeurIPS papers We need humans checking science, so it stays meaningful and correct. Is peer review a necessary evil, or broken? Tell me in the comments 👇 Follow for part 2: why Einstein hated peer review 👀 #science #peerreview #phdlife #research #ai
Everyone can write a scientific paper with AI now. So who's checking it? 🧪 During my PhD in physics I really didn't like peer review: months of waiting and chasing publications. But publications add scrutiny to science, and in the age of AI slop that matters more than ever: 📄 under $15 to write a full paper with an AI Scientist 🤖 199 fully AI-written papers submitted to ICLR 2026 ✅ 1 of 3 AI-written papers passed a workshop review 📝 1 in 5 ICLR 2026 reviews written fully by AI 👻 100 made-up citations found in 51 accepted NeurIPS papers We need humans checking science, so it stays meaningful and correct. Is peer review a necessary evil, or broken? Tell me in the comments 👇 Follow for part 2: why Einstein hated peer review 👀 #science #peerreview #phdlife #research #ai
<Recognition for Editorial Contributions> Peer review is essential to science, and it is sustained by the voluntary time, expertise, and thoughtful feedback of reviewers around the world. Authors, reviewers, and editors each play different but equally important roles. Together, we help meaningful research reach the medical and scientific community. The Editorial Awards from Scientific Reports by Springer Nature encourage me to continue contributing to high-quality science through editorial work, research, and clinical practice. @springernature Thank you very much for your continued support. #SpringerNature #EditorialAward #PeerReview #AcademicPublishing #MedicalResearch #Science #Physiology #ClinicalPractice #Research #Medicine
<Recognition for Editorial Contributions> Peer review is essential to science, and it is sustained by the voluntary time, expertise, and thoughtful feedback of reviewers around the world. Authors, reviewers, and editors each play different but equally important roles. Together, we help meaningful research reach the medical and scientific community. The Editorial Awards from Scientific Reports by Springer Nature encourage me to continue contributing to high-quality science through editorial work, research, and clinical practice. @springernature Thank you very much for your continued support. #SpringerNature #EditorialAward #PeerReview #AcademicPublishing #MedicalResearch #Science #Physiology #ClinicalPractice #Research #Medicine
The decision to another paper is out, and let me tell you, Reviewer 2 showed 0% mercy😭😭 #reviewer2 #peerreview #ievaandrulyte #neuroscience #neuroscientist
The decision to another paper is out, and let me tell you, Reviewer 2 showed 0% mercy😭😭 #reviewer2 #peerreview #ievaandrulyte #neuroscience #neuroscientist
Everyone can write a scientific paper with AI now. So who's checking it? 🧪 During my PhD in physics I really didn't like peer review: months of waiting and chasing publications. But publications add scrutiny to science, and in the age of AI slop that matters more than ever: 📄 under $15 to write a full paper with an AI Scientist 🤖 199 fully AI-written papers submitted to ICLR 2026 ✅ 1 of 3 AI-written papers passed a workshop review 📝 1 in 5 ICLR 2026 reviews written fully by AI 👻 100 made-up citations found in 51 accepted NeurIPS papers We need humans checking science, so it stays meaningful and correct. Is peer review a necessary evil, or broken? Tell me in the comments 👇 Follow for part 2: why Einstein hated peer review 👀 #science #peerreview #phdlife #research #ai
Everyone can write a scientific paper with AI now. So who's checking it? 🧪 During my PhD in physics I really didn't like peer review: months of waiting and chasing publications. But publications add scrutiny to science, and in the age of AI slop that matters more than ever: 📄 under $15 to write a full paper with an AI Scientist 🤖 199 fully AI-written papers submitted to ICLR 2026 ✅ 1 of 3 AI-written papers passed a workshop review 📝 1 in 5 ICLR 2026 reviews written fully by AI 👻 100 made-up citations found in 51 accepted NeurIPS papers We need humans checking science, so it stays meaningful and correct. Is peer review a necessary evil, or broken? Tell me in the comments 👇 Follow for part 2: why Einstein hated peer review 👀 #science #peerreview #phdlife #research #ai
An AI-detection analysis flagged roughly one in five peer reviews at one of the world's biggest AI research conferences as fully AI-generated. At ICLR 2026, Pangram Labs classified about 21% of nearly 76,000 official reviews as fully AI-written, over half showed some level of AI involvement. A separate academic study found independent corroborating evidence, though not proof, when it cross-checked cases where authors suspected a review was AI-written. Peer review exists to critically evaluate research before the community trusts it. Now AI itself appears to be playing a substantial role in writing those evaluations, sometimes without being disclosed. New AI research, explained weekly. Follow for more. #AI #ArtificialIntelligence #MachineLearning #PeerReview #AINews
An AI-detection analysis flagged roughly one in five peer reviews at one of the world's biggest AI research conferences as fully AI-generated. At ICLR 2026, Pangram Labs classified about 21% of nearly 76,000 official reviews as fully AI-written, over half showed some level of AI involvement. A separate academic study found independent corroborating evidence, though not proof, when it cross-checked cases where authors suspected a review was AI-written. Peer review exists to critically evaluate research before the community trusts it. Now AI itself appears to be playing a substantial role in writing those evaluations, sometimes without being disclosed. New AI research, explained weekly. Follow for more. #AI #ArtificialIntelligence #MachineLearning #PeerReview #AINews
Anyone else? I like to rag on reviewers a lot but their feedback is honestly very helpful sometimes. I think it’s something we realise when we’re later stage academics but when we’re getting started with academia as PhD students the feedback of especially reviewer 2 can feel quite harsh. Do you have the same grad school paper writing and publishing experience? Or do you know to take journal reviewer comments with a pinch of salt? #phd #phdadvice #phdstudent #phdstudentlife #phdandproductivity #phdstudentsofinstagram #phdstruggles #gradschool #gradstudent #gradstudentlife #gradschoollife #gradschoolproblems #academics #academia #journalpaper #reviewer2 #journalpublication #paperwriting #academicpaper #peerreview
Anyone else? I like to rag on reviewers a lot but their feedback is honestly very helpful sometimes. I think it’s something we realise when we’re later stage academics but when we’re getting started with academia as PhD students the feedback of especially reviewer 2 can feel quite harsh. Do you have the same grad school paper writing and publishing experience? Or do you know to take journal reviewer comments with a pinch of salt? #phd #phdadvice #phdstudent #phdstudentlife #phdandproductivity #phdstudentsofinstagram #phdstruggles #gradschool #gradstudent #gradstudentlife #gradschoollife #gradschoolproblems #academics #academia #journalpaper #reviewer2 #journalpublication #paperwriting #academicpaper #peerreview
Come with me to read peer review reports and make a decision about a manuscript. Being an editor-in-chief of an academic journal has made me view a lot (but not all!) of this process quite differently. More and more we have issues of people ghosting agreed upon reviews. Recently, it took me 27 invitations to find one reviewer for an article. My academic journal is Creator and Influencer Studies, published by Springer Nature. We are the world’s first journal devoted to all things creators, influencers, streamers, and online cultural production. #academia #research #peerreview #academicpublishing #journalarticle
Come with me to read peer review reports and make a decision about a manuscript. Being an editor-in-chief of an academic journal has made me view a lot (but not all!) of this process quite differently. More and more we have issues of people ghosting agreed upon reviews. Recently, it took me 27 invitations to find one reviewer for an article. My academic journal is Creator and Influencer Studies, published by Springer Nature. We are the world’s first journal devoted to all things creators, influencers, streamers, and online cultural production. #academia #research #peerreview #academicpublishing #journalarticle
Almost the ENTIRE editorial board for this mathematics journal just quit. Let’s talk about the research peer review process in mathematics and why it’s so exploitative. . . . . #math #abstractalgebra #academia #peerreview #publishing
Almost the ENTIRE editorial board for this mathematics journal just quit. Let’s talk about the research peer review process in mathematics and why it’s so exploitative. . . . . #math #abstractalgebra #academia #peerreview #publishing
Peer review is great and all, but who is out here getting acceptance on first submission? Not me! 🤦🏻‍♀️ Back to addressing reviewer comments…✌🏼#academiaproblems #peerreview #researcher #professor #phdlife
Peer review is great and all, but who is out here getting acceptance on first submission? Not me! 🤦🏻‍♀️ Back to addressing reviewer comments…✌🏼#academiaproblems #peerreview #researcher #professor #phdlife
72 linguists and journal reviewers were handed a stack of manuscripts and asked: did a real person write this, or ChatGPT? You'd have been better off flipping a coin. They got it right 39% of the time. That's a problem for you. Most people judging your paper think they can tell, and the data show they can't. And once a reviewer decides your paper sounds like AI, it's very hard to argue against that hunch. Comment CHECK and we'll run your research topic or abstract through our publishability formula and tell you what's working and what to strengthen first. Full video: youtu.be/uaDwj8fVZ_4 (channel link in bio) #AIinResearch #PeerReview #PhD #AcademicWriting
72 linguists and journal reviewers were handed a stack of manuscripts and asked: did a real person write this, or ChatGPT? You'd have been better off flipping a coin. They got it right 39% of the time. That's a problem for you. Most people judging your paper think they can tell, and the data show they can't. And once a reviewer decides your paper sounds like AI, it's very hard to argue against that hunch. Comment CHECK and we'll run your research topic or abstract through our publishability formula and tell you what's working and what to strengthen first. Full video: youtu.be/uaDwj8fVZ_4 (channel link in bio) #AIinResearch #PeerReview #PhD #AcademicWriting
⬇️ Read this You waited weeks, maybe months. Then the email came. Not even from reviewers. Just the editor. A desk reject. No feedback. No data. Nothing to go on. And here’s what most researchers do next: they either sit on it for months doing nothing, or they rip the whole paper apart. Both are the wrong move. Because a desk reject doesn’t tell you your research is bad. It tells you your packaging is off. In 60 seconds, an editor scanned your paper and didn’t see what they needed to see. That’s actually fixable. Same research, same data, same results. Change the framing, sharpen the gap, tighten the cover letter, and a paper that got rejected four times suddenly breezes through to peer review. I’ve seen it happen. So when you get a desk reject, run this check: Is the gap obvious from the abstract alone? Is the value of what you found clearly stated, not buried, not undersold? Does your method actually deliver on the claim you’re making? Does everything flow in a straight line, gap to question to method to results to conclusion? And is this the right journal for this paper? If any answer is no, that’s your data. That’s where the fix lives. One more thing on value. If the most exciting thing you can say about your paper is “we found a significant association,” the editor isn’t going to get excited either. You need to be able to tell that story at a dinner party in a way a non-specialist can follow. Bold isn’t the same as overstating. There’s room within your findings to say clearly why it matters. Don’t do radical surgery without feedback. Don’t sit on it. Just go to the next journal on your shortlist. You should have three to five lined up before you submit. A desk reject is not a verdict on your work. It’s a signal. Use it. Want my free training on how to publish in high-impact journals fast? It’s the exact method I use with my students at Harvard, Cambridge and Oxford to get papers done in under 90 days. Comment TRAINING and I’ll send it through. #AcademicPublishing #PhDLife #ResearchTips #PeerReview #PublishOrPerish
⬇️ Read this You waited weeks, maybe months. Then the email came. Not even from reviewers. Just the editor. A desk reject. No feedback. No data. Nothing to go on. And here’s what most researchers do next: they either sit on it for months doing nothing, or they rip the whole paper apart. Both are the wrong move. Because a desk reject doesn’t tell you your research is bad. It tells you your packaging is off. In 60 seconds, an editor scanned your paper and didn’t see what they needed to see. That’s actually fixable. Same research, same data, same results. Change the framing, sharpen the gap, tighten the cover letter, and a paper that got rejected four times suddenly breezes through to peer review. I’ve seen it happen. So when you get a desk reject, run this check: Is the gap obvious from the abstract alone? Is the value of what you found clearly stated, not buried, not undersold? Does your method actually deliver on the claim you’re making? Does everything flow in a straight line, gap to question to method to results to conclusion? And is this the right journal for this paper? If any answer is no, that’s your data. That’s where the fix lives. One more thing on value. If the most exciting thing you can say about your paper is “we found a significant association,” the editor isn’t going to get excited either. You need to be able to tell that story at a dinner party in a way a non-specialist can follow. Bold isn’t the same as overstating. There’s room within your findings to say clearly why it matters. Don’t do radical surgery without feedback. Don’t sit on it. Just go to the next journal on your shortlist. You should have three to five lined up before you submit. A desk reject is not a verdict on your work. It’s a signal. Use it. Want my free training on how to publish in high-impact journals fast? It’s the exact method I use with my students at Harvard, Cambridge and Oxford to get papers done in under 90 days. Comment TRAINING and I’ll send it through. #AcademicPublishing #PhDLife #ResearchTips #PeerReview #PublishOrPerish
You can get published before peer review. That does not mean peer review disappears. F1000Research performs editorial checks, publishes the article with a DOI, and then invites named reviewers whose reports appear publicly beside the paper. The peer-review status stays visible. The catch matters: published versions remain online, and PubMed, Scopus and other major databases generally wait until the article passes peer review. The platform also charges an APC based on article type. Before choosing this route, compare the fees, public-review model, permanence and indexing rules with a conventional journal. Send this to the co-author who wants the paper online immediately. #AcademicPublishing #PeerReview
You can get published before peer review. That does not mean peer review disappears. F1000Research performs editorial checks, publishes the article with a DOI, and then invites named reviewers whose reports appear publicly beside the paper. The peer-review status stays visible. The catch matters: published versions remain online, and PubMed, Scopus and other major databases generally wait until the article passes peer review. The platform also charges an APC based on article type. Before choosing this route, compare the fees, public-review model, permanence and indexing rules with a conventional journal. Send this to the co-author who wants the paper online immediately. #AcademicPublishing #PeerReview
back to up