David Green, PhD
@ecologistgreen.bsky.social
Wildlife Ecologist. Passionate about open science, scientific publishing, & peer review. Founder of @StacksJournal.bsky.social, a scientific journal designed ease & ethics.
Learn More & Join Us ⬇️
https://www.stacksjournal.org
Learn More & Join Us ⬇️
https://www.stacksjournal.org
😂
Do you think there's a future where journals will be able to make it mandatory for authors to include their data with publication?
Do you think there's a future where journals will be able to make it mandatory for authors to include their data with publication?
October 16, 2025 at 9:46 PM
😂
Do you think there's a future where journals will be able to make it mandatory for authors to include their data with publication?
Do you think there's a future where journals will be able to make it mandatory for authors to include their data with publication?
Thanks! I'm glad you think our concept at @stacksjournal.bsky.social is interesting. Authors and reviewers have really enjoyed the process and found that it helped create better science.
October 1, 2025 at 9:30 PM
Thanks! I'm glad you think our concept at @stacksjournal.bsky.social is interesting. Authors and reviewers have really enjoyed the process and found that it helped create better science.
I wish it was always the standard, but unfortunately it's not the case.
It definitely helps us learn and grow as researchers so I hope we see more and more journals bringing this process in.
It definitely helps us learn and grow as researchers so I hope we see more and more journals bringing this process in.
October 1, 2025 at 9:29 PM
I wish it was always the standard, but unfortunately it's not the case.
It definitely helps us learn and grow as researchers so I hope we see more and more journals bringing this process in.
It definitely helps us learn and grow as researchers so I hope we see more and more journals bringing this process in.
I think it happens in some journals, but not all. Many of the times I've reviewed articles I don't even learn what the outcome was.
October 1, 2025 at 9:28 PM
I think it happens in some journals, but not all. Many of the times I've reviewed articles I don't even learn what the outcome was.
That's great that it's common in psychology journals. What's the process like for how they do it?
October 1, 2025 at 9:27 PM
That's great that it's common in psychology journals. What's the process like for how they do it?
So if you believe in #peerreview as a fundamental part of the scientific process that increases trust, take a look at what we're building at @stacksjournal.bsky.social.
I think you'll find it to be a breath of fresh air.
6/6
I think you'll find it to be a breath of fresh air.
6/6
Our Unique Peer Review | Stacks Journal
Learn and grow as a researcher, advance your reputation, and contribute to your field through our unique collaborative peer review.
stacksjournal.org
September 17, 2025 at 4:34 PM
So if you believe in #peerreview as a fundamental part of the scientific process that increases trust, take a look at what we're building at @stacksjournal.bsky.social.
I think you'll find it to be a breath of fresh air.
6/6
I think you'll find it to be a breath of fresh air.
6/6
Which is why I think it's time to reimagine what the systems of #peerreview can and should look like.
It's actually why I left my faculty job to create a system of peer review that is ethical, transparent, and fair.
5/
It's actually why I left my faculty job to create a system of peer review that is ethical, transparent, and fair.
5/
👋🏻 I wanted to say hi and reintroduce myself to all of the new community building here.
I'm David and I study the effects of changing landscapes on carnivore populations -- including hyenas, lions, fishers, & foxes.
But now I'm doing something new. A 🧵
🧪 #AcademicSky #SciPub
I'm David and I study the effects of changing landscapes on carnivore populations -- including hyenas, lions, fishers, & foxes.
But now I'm doing something new. A 🧵
🧪 #AcademicSky #SciPub
September 17, 2025 at 4:34 PM
Which is why I think it's time to reimagine what the systems of #peerreview can and should look like.
It's actually why I left my faculty job to create a system of peer review that is ethical, transparent, and fair.
5/
It's actually why I left my faculty job to create a system of peer review that is ethical, transparent, and fair.
5/
In a world where science is losing its credibility and powerful people continue to undermine it, I believe we need to come together and show that #peerreview actually means something.
That it's how we safeguard the knowledge of our fields for generations to come.
4/
That it's how we safeguard the knowledge of our fields for generations to come.
4/
September 17, 2025 at 4:34 PM
In a world where science is losing its credibility and powerful people continue to undermine it, I believe we need to come together and show that #peerreview actually means something.
That it's how we safeguard the knowledge of our fields for generations to come.
4/
That it's how we safeguard the knowledge of our fields for generations to come.
4/
But above all, we need to ensure that the published science is trustworthy.
And that comes from structured peer review. Where qualified experts come together to not only vet each other's research, but to collaborate and help make it stronger.
3/
And that comes from structured peer review. Where qualified experts come together to not only vet each other's research, but to collaborate and help make it stronger.
3/
Guest Post: Preprints Serve the Anti-science Agenda – This Is Why We Need Peer Review - The Scholarly Kitchen
Science is built on a foundation of rigor and credibility. Preprints are adding to the crumbling of that foundation, which is already under attack by anti-science political agendas.
scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org
September 17, 2025 at 4:34 PM
But above all, we need to ensure that the published science is trustworthy.
And that comes from structured peer review. Where qualified experts come together to not only vet each other's research, but to collaborate and help make it stronger.
3/
And that comes from structured peer review. Where qualified experts come together to not only vet each other's research, but to collaborate and help make it stronger.
3/
Yes, we need to remove barriers to sharing research.
Yes, the big publishers have taken advantage of scientists for too long.
Yes, it shouldn't cost thousands of dollars to have your work peer-reviewed.
2/
Yes, the big publishers have taken advantage of scientists for too long.
Yes, it shouldn't cost thousands of dollars to have your work peer-reviewed.
2/
September 17, 2025 at 4:34 PM
Yes, we need to remove barriers to sharing research.
Yes, the big publishers have taken advantage of scientists for too long.
Yes, it shouldn't cost thousands of dollars to have your work peer-reviewed.
2/
Yes, the big publishers have taken advantage of scientists for too long.
Yes, it shouldn't cost thousands of dollars to have your work peer-reviewed.
2/
I love this perspective!
September 11, 2025 at 8:27 PM
I love this perspective!
Glad to see more journals valuing these negative results!
September 11, 2025 at 8:26 PM
Glad to see more journals valuing these negative results!
That's too bad. Did they provide helpful feedback for you to improve your work? Have you been able to get them back into peer review?
September 11, 2025 at 8:25 PM
That's too bad. Did they provide helpful feedback for you to improve your work? Have you been able to get them back into peer review?
Yes -- I love it when that happens! It's great when reviewers show up to collaborate and help improve the research.
September 11, 2025 at 8:24 PM
Yes -- I love it when that happens! It's great when reviewers show up to collaborate and help improve the research.
Been there myself!
September 11, 2025 at 8:23 PM
Been there myself!
I completely agree that publicly funded research should be free to the public and be reproducible! I'm not sure that I believe AI should be playing a major role in peer review. I can see some opportunities for it to support human reviewers, but I don't think we should be relying solely on AI.
September 11, 2025 at 8:23 PM
I completely agree that publicly funded research should be free to the public and be reproducible! I'm not sure that I believe AI should be playing a major role in peer review. I can see some opportunities for it to support human reviewers, but I don't think we should be relying solely on AI.