Easy choice! This is incredible.

What makes you say that the "to-be-ignored" reviews are on average detrimental to the system?

It always is!

Matt, it really was a fund read. A nice piece of classical genetic analysis that calls on diverse data types for support. What not to like?

Plus the writing - "With a bit of tedious book keeping..." Dude!

👌

You should try it at school drop off/pick up more often.

Just sayin'

I suspect all of us had reviews like this. Conservation is NOT a review criterion at the NIH. No harm in pointing that out.

A larger problem is the insane reliance on proposals to decide what should be funded.

I would trade OA publishing and players to be named later, for the system to change.

"Primarily" is a high standard to match, but I thought this study was cool.

www.nature.com/articles/s41...

It depends on what the meaning of the word "species" is.

(just a reminder... Funny sayings by famous people for 100)

I am a little more positive re peer review, though I largely agree with you. But... because the current situation is unsatisfying does not mean it won't get worse if we scrap journals/review. We have recent experience - changes that were supposed to improve likely contributed to making things worse

When one is convinced that one is right, one tends to consider evidence contradicting one's conviction to be less relevant.

Best and right-est.

Are the data consistent with this take? In the 20 years of OA evangelism, the costs (per paper and overall) to investigators increased. The publishing ecosystem seems less healthy than 2-3 decades ago. Unintended consequences are a powerful force. Publishers love the current situation. Should we?

This clean and this empty?