Yesterday I learned that @PNASNews has something called the “Contributed” track. National Academies members can contribute papers and *select their own reviewers.* 🧐 Can anyone explain why this mechanism exists?
Here is a figure from a contributed paper written by accomplished chemists that would never pass peer review by epidemiologists. But it was widely shared because it is published in PNAS. Flagging that the system might need revisiting.
(As others have pointed out, those linear regressions are a big yikes.)
Thanks to those who have shared this informative article on the history of PNAS. In our discussions about inequalities in science, it’s worth pointing out that 13 of the 13 most prolific users of this easier inside track are men. A coincidence? Doubt it.
You can follow @nataliexdean.
Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.
Enjoy Threader? Sign up.
Since you’re here...
... we’re asking visitors like you to make a contribution to support this independent project. In these uncertain times, access to information is vital. Threader gets 1,000,000+ visits a month and our iOS Twitter client was featured as an App of the Day by Apple. Your financial support will help two developers to keep working on this app. Everyone’s contribution, big or small, is so valuable. Support Threader by becoming premium or by donating on PayPal. Thank you.