Open science and systematic review pest. Editor-in-Chief at @EBTJournal. Not posting on X anymore, on LinkedIn instead. linkedin.com/in/whaleypaul/
Joined May 2008
- Tweets 4,791
- Following 513
- Followers 933
- Likes 84
376 Photos and videos
Pinned Tweet
6 Jul 2023
And here it is, our first accepted manuscript at Evidence-Based Toxicology, a new open-science journal for environmental health research.
6 Jul 2023
Big News: We have accepted our first manuscript at EBT - a protocol for the development of INVITES-IN, a tool for assessing the internal validity of in vitro studies. Accepted preprint here: zenodo.org/record/7899720 and reviewer assessment reports are here zenodo.org/record/7899720
1
3
772
23 Aug 2024
Editor-in-Chief highlight of the week? Peer-review report for a protocol for testing automated data extraction tools. Really constructive, esp. on planned analysis methods - so often missing from protocols, and so easy to miss the missing as a reviewer. zenodo.org/records/13367138
1
108
21 Aug 2024
EBT is participating in what is probably the first-ever randomised controlled trial of an intervention to improve peer-review. It is... complicated, because it turns out running controlled trials in journals is just unbelievably difficult to do, but Noah has us covered.π€
1
1
639
7 Aug 2024
This is very cool, and I can't believe I get to be involved in Noah flourishing. (Did I get that right?)
1
80
23 Jul 2024
This is a great paper that was a real pleasure to edit. There is an interesting take on what "preregistration" ought to mean (basically, if sight of data was possible, you shouldn't call your study plan a preregistration but something else). Well-argued state of the science.
23 Jul 2024
New paper: The benefits of preregistration and Registered Reports, with Cristian Mesquida, @sajedeh_rasti and former lab visitor Max Ditroilo. We provide a state-of-the-art overview of the metascience on preregistration and Registered Reports. tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.β¦ >
3
6
2,138
9 May 2024
That feeling when you are reviewing a paper and find that a different reviewer has recommended your own paper be included as an important reference, so you don't have to. πͺ
6
194
25 Mar 2024
Cannot for the life of me understand why this has happened.
2
3
9
1,700
8 Nov 2023
A cool thing I got the chance to do.
8
489
5 Nov 2023
This is where our "no rejections" policy at my journal looks so strong - it forces us to engage with the development of a promising and potentially important manuscript, where other journals may not put in the time.
5 Nov 2023
New evaluation report, for a protocol for proof-of-concept demonstration of automated data extraction in an evidence mapping context. A challenge to structure the planned methods. Asked for revisions and look forward to seeing the next draft. zenodo.org/records/10073181
1
296
5 Nov 2023
Nothing annoying about editing a flood of papers bemoaning how the lack of good training data for language models has held back automated evidence synthesis in environmental health, when five years ago your proposal to do exactly that was derided as pointless. I'm not bitter. :)
1
183
4 Nov 2023
Yep, do it! Get more email - but email worth getting! I promise.
4 Nov 2023
Stay updated by email: We are setting up a regular newsletter to provide updates on new submissions, evaluation reports, webinars and journal clubs, developments in editorial policy, and other things that may be of interest to our readers. Subscribe here: bit.ly/EBTJournalUpdates
1
2
297
30 Oct 2023
Automating compliance with #PRISMA & reporting checklists, AND SR conduct guidance... who might be interested in this? @EQUATORNetwork @AndrewB007h @carrieprice78 @nealhaddaway @James_M_Thomas @Ruth_Garside huh there is nobody on this platform anymore tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.β¦
2
10
718
Paul Whaley π retweeted
13 Oct 2023
The primary reason for the so-called "replication crisis" is that no scholar seeks to replicate the same findings and same theoretical insights in their work.
We always strive for NEW findings.
If you want us to write the same paper over and over, we won't get anywhere.
9
2
24
9,807
14 Sep 2023
I am against inflicting style guides on authors, but at least PLoS has fun doing it. :)
2
181
5 Sep 2023
We have had to cobble together a workflow out of a few different parts, but overall (a) it really does seem to work, (b) it at least hits our mark on transparency, and (c) EBT has its first paper out, so is a proper, real journal! π₯³ This has been a big lift from a lot of people
5 Sep 2023
The first article in our journal illustrates three of our major editorial policies, around protocol publication, use of preprints, and transparency of decision-making processes. See the full manuscript here: tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.β¦
1
1
4
418
4 Sep 2023
Can't help but wonder if social media encourages in me a certain degree of overfamiliarity with people who are basically complete strangers.
1
122
4 Sep 2023
New preprint! So, you are wondering how to test the performance of a study appraisal tool? Wonder no more! (This is for a tool for assessing internal validity of in vitro studies, but the general lessons apply. Warning: contains power analysis.) zenodo.org/record/8315605
3
278
3 Sep 2023
Oh Jesus Christ I copied the corresponding author into some background discussion about their manuscript. Somebody shoot me.
4
1,139
29 Aug 2023
When snarking about this a while back, I said that if it were discovered I had faked my data, I would at least hope that it would undermine the value of my research. @a_m_mastroianni has written a whole substack article on it! experimental-history.com/p/iβ¦
1
58
29 Aug 2023
I'm not quite convinced it supports his theory that science is a strong link problem. (Error in irrelevant research doesn't matter because the research is irrelevant, not because individual error is doesn't really matter.) His jump-off point is still important, however.
35