-
Paper Discussion: Should conference proceedings count the same as journal ar...
Paper Discussion
Different universities and committees weight conference papers very differently. In fast‑moving fields conferences matter a lot; in others they are treated as minor outputs. Is a unified weighting framework realistic?
-
Paper Discussion: Are replication studies undervalued by the current academi...
Paper Discussion
Replication is foundational to science, yet replication papers are harder to publish and often bring less career reward. What changes would make replication work more valued?
-
Journals could have dedicated replication tracks with clear acceptance criteria.
-
Funders could create small replication grant pots.
-
-
Discussion: Should supplementary information be peer reviewed with the same ...
Paper Discussion
Some reviewers barely look at supplements; others treat them as equally important. Should journals require the same depth of review for appendices and supplementary figures?
View more comments-
Supplements that support core conclusions deserve careful scrutiny.
2 -
Exploratory extra material is lower priority for deep review.
2 - View more comments
-
-
Discussion: Is it acceptable to cite your own unpublished internal reports?
Paper Discussion
Sometimes you have internal lab reports, internal validation runs or whitepapers that are not public preprints. Are these appropriate citations in manuscripts, and how should they be formatted?
View more comments-
Unpublished internal reports should only support minor contextual points.
3 -
They cannot be used as primary evidence for core study claims.
6 - View more comments
-
-
Should journals allow authors to opt out of reviewer identity masking entirely?
Paper Discussion
Some authors prefer open review from the start, others want double‑blind. If journals offered a simple opt‑out of blinding, would this create healthier review cultures or new biases?
View more comments-
Open identity may encourage more constructive, respectful feedback.
2 -
Early‑career authors can face power imbalance when reviewers are senior.
2 - View more comments
-
-
Opinion: Should review invitations include an explicit expected time budget?
Paper Discussion
Reviewers often underestimate how long a high‑quality review takes. If journals stated an estimated time commitment upfront, would this improve acceptance rates and review quality?
View more comments-
Transparent time estimates help reviewers decide whether they can commit.
6 -
Estimates are hard to standardise across different manuscript types.
6 - View more comments
-
-
Should journal peer‑review reports require explicit competing‑interest state...
Paper Discussion
Authors must submit competing‑interest disclosures, yet many journals do not require reviewers to submit formal conflict‑of‑interest statements alongside their review reports. Would mandatory reviewer COI disclosure improve peer‑review trustworthiness?
View more comments-
Mandatory reviewer COI would surface hidden professional or competitive conflicts.
4 -
Extra administrative burden would fall onto reviewers and journal editorial offices.
4 - View more comments
-
-
Best practices for handling authorship updates after manuscript initial subm...
Paper Discussion
Sometimes new contributors join, or existing authors change order after you submit manuscript. Journals have varying policies for mid‑submission authorship edits. What standard workflow should authors follow to request authorship changes after initial submission?
View more comments-
Read journal’s official authorship‑change policy before making any requests.
4 -
Prepare formal signed agreement from every existing and new co‑author.
6 - View more comments
-
-
When is it acceptable to perform additional new analyses during manuscript r...
Paper Discussion
During revision many authors run brand‑new analyses beyond what original submission contained. Some new analyses are reasonable responses to reviewer feedback, others expand manuscript scope substantially. Where should authors draw this boundary during rebuttal work?
View more comments-
New analyses directly answering explicit reviewer requests are fully appropriate.
2 -
Large brand‑new exploratory research outside reviewer questions should usually go to future papers.
2 - View more comments
-
-
How to interpret reviewer comments that are factually incorrect?
Paper Discussion
Occasionally reviewers make statements containing factual mistakes about your field or your manuscript. You must respond respectfully while correcting misinformation. What is your balanced approach for handling fact‑incorrect reviewer remarks?
View more comments-
Politely and gently point out factual error with supporting citations or manuscript locations.
2 -
Stay completely respectful; never directly label the reviewer as wrong in your wording.
2 - View more comments
-
- Load More
