|
@WilliamAEden | |||||
|
Watching nCoV discussion unfold, I’m starting to really like the peer review model of rapidly publishing on arXiv, and hashing out issues via social media.
It makes “peer review” look increasingly like the unfair (and fatally slow) ancient process that it is.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
William Eden
@WilliamAEden
|
1. velj |
|
This is how it’s done: a thread compiling expert opinions on the dubious nCoV-HIV connection:
twitter.com/mugecevik/stat… twitter.com/mugecevik/stat…
|
||
|
|
||
|
mrgunn
@mrgunn
|
1. velj |
|
You're liking having to wade through a stew of nonsense? twitter.com/JohnRInglis/st…
|
||
|
|
||
|
Kevin McKernan
@Kevin_McKernan
|
1. velj |
|
Yet the reviews done in the preprint comment section are more thorough than most Anon peer reviews delivered by the old broken system.
|
||
|
|
||
|
mrgunn
@mrgunn
|
1. velj |
|
How about this? twitter.com/richardhorton1…
|
||
|
|
||