Good experiences of peer-review at Qeios

Mike Taylor

doi:10.59350/ht7qd-j1t78

March 9, 2021Open Access

Good experiences of peer-review at Qeios

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Key Points

Improved peer-review experiences were notable within a month of publication, enhancing response rates.
The initial challenge in securing reviewers shifted dramatically over the last nineteen days, indicating progress.
Our publication on sauropod pneumaticity variability at Qeios coincided with an increased interest in the paper.
This scenario reflects broader trends in peer-review dynamics at Qeios compared to traditional journals.

Implication

Observational insights highlight improved peer-review engagement after publishing on Qeios.

Abstract

A month after I and Matt published our paper "Why is vertebral pneumaticity in sauropod dinosaurs so variable?" at Qeios, we were bemoaning how difficult it was to get anyone to review it. But what a difference the last nineteen days have made!

Discussion

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Cite This Study

Mike Taylor (2021) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68eb6f7ceea689731b300673 https://doi.org/10.59350/ht7qd-j1t78

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Good experiences of peer-review at Qeios

Key Points

Implication

Abstract

Discussion

Cite This Study

Good experiences of peer-review at Qeios

Key Points

Implication

Abstract

Discussion

Cite This Study

Keep reading

Keep reading