Thomas Wolgast
@twolgast.bsky.social
Trying to improve scientific publishing. Creator of reviewersearch.net, a reviewer recommender for journals. Currently starting OpenScientia.org.
Energy system Research | Applied AI | Open Science.
Energy system Research | Applied AI | Open Science.
Take it as a compliment. Appearantly, they did not find anything real to criticize.
October 19, 2025 at 7:24 PM
Take it as a compliment. Appearantly, they did not find anything real to criticize.
I'm still early career, so no spamming yet 😄
April 10, 2025 at 5:46 AM
I'm still early career, so no spamming yet 😄
Well, at least the review is quickly done this way... I would lose trust in the whole manuscript if this happened to me.
April 9, 2025 at 8:46 PM
Well, at least the review is quickly done this way... I would lose trust in the whole manuscript if this happened to me.
This is not unusual in my perception.
They add you to their system first so that they can contact you via their system, I guess?
They add you to their system first so that they can contact you via their system, I guess?
April 9, 2025 at 8:42 PM
This is not unusual in my perception.
They add you to their system first so that they can contact you via their system, I guess?
They add you to their system first so that they can contact you via their system, I guess?
Academia really knows how to use bad software...
April 9, 2025 at 10:43 AM
Academia really knows how to use bad software...
It won't be perfect, but using AI to detect fake references is a good idea. It's very tedious to do manually. At the same time fake paper / fake citations are increasing in numbers.
April 9, 2025 at 6:14 AM
It won't be perfect, but using AI to detect fake references is a good idea. It's very tedious to do manually. At the same time fake paper / fake citations are increasing in numbers.
As an author, I also like the constructive reviews the most.
If reviews are not actionable for the authors, we would spend a lot of time for only :thumbs up:
If reviews are not actionable for the authors, we would spend a lot of time for only :thumbs up:
April 1, 2025 at 5:56 PM
As an author, I also like the constructive reviews the most.
If reviews are not actionable for the authors, we would spend a lot of time for only :thumbs up:
If reviews are not actionable for the authors, we would spend a lot of time for only :thumbs up:
In the end, only one thing matters, and that's quality. If AI produces high-quality reviews, we should absolutely use it.
However, we have to consider the side effects. For example, it's useless when some reviewer only uses AI without own input. The editor can do that himself...
However, we have to consider the side effects. For example, it's useless when some reviewer only uses AI without own input. The editor can do that himself...
April 1, 2025 at 5:40 PM
In the end, only one thing matters, and that's quality. If AI produces high-quality reviews, we should absolutely use it.
However, we have to consider the side effects. For example, it's useless when some reviewer only uses AI without own input. The editor can do that himself...
However, we have to consider the side effects. For example, it's useless when some reviewer only uses AI without own input. The editor can do that himself...
I've seen high-quality MDPI publications. Lots of authors publish there thinking these are normal journals.
I don't think you can exclude them generally.
I don't think you can exclude them generally.
April 1, 2025 at 5:45 AM
I've seen high-quality MDPI publications. Lots of authors publish there thinking these are normal journals.
I don't think you can exclude them generally.
I don't think you can exclude them generally.
That's the most shocking part of it, how willingly some people waste other people's time...
March 31, 2025 at 6:27 PM
That's the most shocking part of it, how willingly some people waste other people's time...
True! Writing high-quality code is such an integral part of good research nowadays. In and outside of CS.
March 31, 2025 at 6:24 PM
True! Writing high-quality code is such an integral part of good research nowadays. In and outside of CS.
Worth investigating! But I'm not fully convinced. The side effects will be drastic. People will stop reviewing if there is no payment. Other researchers will make good money by reviewing a lot. Many AI created reviews will be created to make more money. Especially the last point is a problem...
March 31, 2025 at 6:13 AM
Worth investigating! But I'm not fully convinced. The side effects will be drastic. People will stop reviewing if there is no payment. Other researchers will make good money by reviewing a lot. Many AI created reviews will be created to make more money. Especially the last point is a problem...
True! Preregistration is essentially non-existent in my field (computer science/engineering).
I'm very interested in the publication system and how to improve it. A broader implementation of these ideas is probably a good step forward.
I'm very interested in the publication system and how to improve it. A broader implementation of these ideas is probably a good step forward.
March 30, 2025 at 3:22 PM
True! Preregistration is essentially non-existent in my field (computer science/engineering).
I'm very interested in the publication system and how to improve it. A broader implementation of these ideas is probably a good step forward.
I'm very interested in the publication system and how to improve it. A broader implementation of these ideas is probably a good step forward.
The reviewing system seems to break apart. Eighth months is just ridiculously slow...
I'm currently building reviewersearch.net. I hope it will help to make things more efficient and faster.
I'm currently building reviewersearch.net. I hope it will help to make things more efficient and faster.
Reviewer Search
An automated reviewer recommender for editors and journals.
reviewersearch.net
March 30, 2025 at 3:09 PM
The reviewing system seems to break apart. Eighth months is just ridiculously slow...
I'm currently building reviewersearch.net. I hope it will help to make things more efficient and faster.
I'm currently building reviewersearch.net. I hope it will help to make things more efficient and faster.
Thank you!
However, as far as I understand it, research screener is a tool for writing review papers, not for peer reviews. Still an interesting approach.
However, as far as I understand it, research screener is a tool for writing review papers, not for peer reviews. Still an interesting approach.
March 28, 2025 at 10:24 AM
Thank you!
However, as far as I understand it, research screener is a tool for writing review papers, not for peer reviews. Still an interesting approach.
However, as far as I understand it, research screener is a tool for writing review papers, not for peer reviews. Still an interesting approach.
Yeah, probably ChatGPT. However, usually, the citation is complete bogus and can never be found.
March 28, 2025 at 9:50 AM
Yeah, probably ChatGPT. However, usually, the citation is complete bogus and can never be found.
Thank you! I hope that my tool can also offer that in the long-term. A good quality database of reviewers, how quick they answer, how good their reviews are, etc.
March 28, 2025 at 9:24 AM
Thank you! I hope that my tool can also offer that in the long-term. A good quality database of reviewers, how quick they answer, how good their reviews are, etc.
I didn't know covidence yet. Thanks for sharing! I'm actually building something related at the moment : reviewersearch.net
Reviewer Search
An automated reviewer recommender for editors and journals.
reviewersearch.net
March 28, 2025 at 9:04 AM
I didn't know covidence yet. Thanks for sharing! I'm actually building something related at the moment : reviewersearch.net
BTW do you know @jobrxiv.bsky.social already?
March 26, 2025 at 9:01 PM
BTW do you know @jobrxiv.bsky.social already?
My personal lesson learned: Don't change your topic over and over again to find the perfect topic. Stick with the first good-enough idea and get it done! (PhD)
March 26, 2025 at 8:11 PM
My personal lesson learned: Don't change your topic over and over again to find the perfect topic. Stick with the first good-enough idea and get it done! (PhD)
Yes, that is a common thing, at least in Germany. The Prof already has someone in mind but is forced to advertise publicly. That's how such situations happen...
March 26, 2025 at 6:24 PM
Yes, that is a common thing, at least in Germany. The Prof already has someone in mind but is forced to advertise publicly. That's how such situations happen...
Great work! I really like the idea of fast reviewing and will certainly consider this when improving reviewersearch.net. However, I think that a single week is not necessary. Two to four weeks would still be a great improvement without the pressure on the reviewers/editors.
Reviewer Search
An automated reviewer recommender for editors and journals.
reviewersearch.net
March 26, 2025 at 3:32 PM
Great work! I really like the idea of fast reviewing and will certainly consider this when improving reviewersearch.net. However, I think that a single week is not necessary. Two to four weeks would still be a great improvement without the pressure on the reviewers/editors.