Login
You're viewing the front-end.social public feed.
  • Oct 20, 2026, 6:38 PM

    "The rapidly growing volume of academic papers is outpacing the scientific community’s ability to critically evaluate them. This makes it increasingly important to equip the next generation of researchers with the skills that they need to become peer reviewers.

    But formal curricula rarely include these skills. Universities invest years in teaching students how to design experiments and analyse data, but leave peer-review training mostly to informal mentorship.

    So, how do early-career researchers — especially students and postdocs — learn to develop a critical eye?

    Preprints offer a valuable opportunity for trainees to practise reviewing manuscripts outside the formal journal-review process, and several initiatives have been established with this in mind."

    #preprint
    #AcademicResearch
    #PeerReview

    nature.com/articles/d41586-026

    💬 2🔄 9⭐ 5

Replies

  • Oct 20, 2026, 7:19 PM

    Strikes me that I can add direct observation to help illustrate the challenge.

    We scan a limited number of academic journals (~150) to compose the @SkepticalScience weekly #ClimateResearch review. It's a tiny sampling of journals but typical flow is about 1,500 articles/week.

    Stipulating reasonably scrupulous review and a spectrum of paper content and editorial architecture, producing this output imposes a minimum requirement of something like 3,000 volunteer reviewers needing to commit perhaps 6,000 hours per week.

    Overall, ~300,000 hours per year of diligent volunteeer effort to maintain this limited collection of journals.

    [And a thing of beauty to behold.]

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0