Daniel Evanko

Another clear evidence of reviewers bias, A=Anonymized, L=lower prominence, H=higher prominence #PRC9

@mehmanib Cleanest evidence I’ve ever seen of substantial review bias based on identity of author, Completely agree that double-blind anonymization would not fix because prominent authors can almost always be identified. Really depressing!

Next is my favorite! How author status impacts reviewers behavior #PRC9

The AACR is outraged by the widespread suffering and death due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. @AACR_CEO and @AACRPres join the world in calling for an immediate end to the aggression and for the protection of cancer patients, researchers, and providers. bit.ly/3HG6JYD

@Proofig @Nature @Richvn This tool has certainly made our job so much easier and has already prevented the publication of dozens of duplicated images. Also very happy with how responsive the Proofig team is to feature requests. The editor who requested the newly added notes feature loves it.

@Proofig named among pioneers of #image_proofing technology by @Nature. Delighted to serve scientific journal publishers, editors and researchers striving to improve the quality and integrity of scientific publications. go.nature.com/3Jo4VWy @Richvn #science #Research

Read how #AI supports @AACR’s efforts in addressing image duplication go.nature.com/3H3WnSB #reproducibility

Amazing! Cleaning up from former occupant of my new office and found a copy of @naturemethods Visualizing Biological Data collection I created with @seaniod @ngehlenborg @bangwong and others for 2010 @bioviz conf. Great memories. Miss all you and working on #Datavisualization

@heatherlifts @Richvn @AACR Agreed. No tool will be perfect or infallible. I find it somewhat troubling that some appear to be putting off the use of what is available in hopes of finding the "perfect" tool. Research and publication is intrinsically messy. All we can do is our reasonable best to improve it.

New story: I've learnt of at least four journal publishers adopting AI software to automatedly flag duplicated images in papers, pre-publication. Still needs editorial oversight, but an early taste of how image-screening AI cld sweep through sector. (1/3) nature.com/articles/d4158…

@Richvn @AACR We used to do some manual screening but found that using the AI tool first appears to be much more efficient and spots things that manual screening misses. Our workflow also conveniently embeds the PhD editors into the process from the start, limiting false positives.

@devanko @AACR Some said they used AI tools to assist manual screeners, but that isn't the same as having the AI go over the paper first and do the flagging, which people then review. But I'm sure there are more journals out there doing it this way -- or who will be doing it soon!

Riding on ⁦@GoZwift⁩ with ⁦@MarkCavendish⁩ right now!

@rita_strack Looks like a great collection @rita_strack. Thanks for making it free to access so I could download the articles for reading. My free @naturemethods subscription was unfortunately cancelled☹️

Finally out after almost a year in the works is our Focus issue on Reporting and reproducibility in microscopy!! I can only describe this as a labor of love on the parts of the authors, referees, and our team, and we're so pleased to share this with you all.

Is cancer biology research reproducible? After a decade of work, the answer still isn’t clear. What is clear is that researchers aren't good at describing how they did their study. This is improving, but we need to do better! statnews.com/2021/12/07/can… via @statnews

To improve author reporting of experimental methods and increase #reproducibility, the @AACR journals will no longer constrain authors by including the methods section when calculating manuscript/article length. aacrjournals.org/improv-reprod

@OSFramework @ScienceExchange @eLife @Arnold_Ventures Great to see the summary and meta analysis of this project, and a beautiful new website presenting the work. The large decrease in effect sizes is definitely a concern, but the cause is still unknown. Researchers MUST do a better job reporting exactly how they do their studies.

#JustReleased: Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology, a collaboration of the Center for Open Science @OSFramework, @ScienceExchange & @eLife w/ support from @Arnold_Ventures, replicating experiments from past #cancerbiology papers. cos.io/rpcb #openscience

The PRC abstract submission portal is now open! We are now accepting abstracts of studies describing processes to improve scientific research and scholarly commentary. Learn more and submit your abstract at peerreviewcongress.org/preparing-and-… @METRICStanford @bmj_latest @JAMA_current

The @AACR is pleased to announce the launch of a new open access journal, Cancer Research Communications! To read the inaugural articles and to learn more about submitting your research, visit bit.ly/3DWde8g #cancerresearch #openaccess

FREE Virtual Symposium! Advancing the Science of Scientific Publishing Call for Research and Abstracts for the Ninth Peer Review Congress September 14, 2021 11:00 AM – 12:30 PM ET | 3:00 – 4:30 PM GMT Register: zoom.us/webinar/regist… Learn More: read.alerts.jamanetwork.com/csb/Public/sho…

Register now for the AACR Journals Webinar– @SciScore: An Effective Tool that Verifies Rigor Criteria and Research Resources December 7 at 11AM EST. Featuring @Anitabandrowski @mathein bit.ly/2Jg8SSj