🎓 Want to level up? Join Mike Croucher from MathWorks for an in-person workshop:
- When: Tuesday 11 February (13:00-16:00)
- Where: Murray Learning Centre, UoB
- What: Master MATLAB's parallel superpowers, CPU & GPU optimization
- Book here: www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/high-perfo...

Well, James, scientists are humans too 🤪 I was never fond of Freud but his Defence Mechanism of Projection would fit the bill here: instead of painful thoughts of my own flaws, I can happily crap on yours while stroking the feeling of superiority for free. #CommonInScience?

5/ So here I am, wondering: why this dynamic? Why seek my reviews if (a) I am not their stellar published author plus (b) my concerns are dismissed or ignored? Is it just a box-ticking exercise for "external feedback"? Or something else? #AnyThoughts #AdviceWelcomed

4/ The paper is probably out there now, statistical mess intact. And yesterday, the journal invited me to review again.

3/ Now, I wasn't being obstructionist — I was supportive overall. But the analysis was unclear enough that I flagged the possibility of either a shoddy analysis or a poor explanation. Either way, it warranted attention which was ignored.

2/ Quite recently, I reviewed an original submission and its revision, and raised serious concerns about its statistical analysis, yet the paper sailed through seemingly unaltered.

1/ There's a journal (who should not be named) with whom I have a peculiar history. I've submitted work a few times – each attempt unsuccessful; mostly desk-rejected. Yet, strangely, they seem to value my reviews. They've often invited me to review submissions, which I've mostly dutifully done.

Work with @petarmilin.bsky.social and @huisunsh.bsky.social, funded by @leverhulme.bsky.social, carried out @lcuob.bsky.social @artsatbham.bsky.social with OA provided by the UoB library

BTW, check out our new programme: it's MAGIC (MA in Global Intercultural Communication)
www.birmingham.ac.uk/study/postgr...