Someone got blue shelled?

I think they have a different moderation team, so I’m not sure how long this usually takes

This a great idea for an assignment! Thanks for the link

We have similar data that this is also happening across Norway, preprint coming soon!

While I wish that there were no word limits for methods and results sections, that’s the current reality for many journals. However, this kind of info can always be reported in supplements, either as text or as a table

Of course, if you’re reporting the results of more than a few tests, then a table or .csv file is a much better option. The main point is that it can be useful to report this sort of info *somewhere* in a paper. Data sharing can be especially useful, but this is not always feasible

Don’t get me started on papers from 20+ years ago. These are like “Our intervention was successful (p < .05)”

Some journals can also post your peer review activity on your ORCID profile, I wish this was standard

As a persistent identifier, I see it like a DOI, but for people. Especially useful if you have a common name or if you change your name. Some journal portals allow ORCID login, which is way easier than the alternative. Some portals can also autofill info from your ORCID profile

Interesting, my guess was in the ballpark! Where did you get this info?

Yeah, I see lots of uptake on some fields and less in others. I think it also depends on how much the the journals in a field push ORCIDs with submissions

I don’t have any precise numbers but my guess is that it’s a fair bit less than 50%

Nice! That’s a really handy feature

We’re doing a project where we’re contacting corresponding authors from registrations written around 5-10 years ago. I think about a third of the emails we sent bounced due to email accounts no longer existing