lexbouter.bsky.social
@LexBouter
Followers
2K
Following
17K
Media
168
Statuses
5K
Lex M. Bouter, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Methodology and Integrity, Amsterdam, The Netherlands https://t.co/n8jKFxZ7bO…
Joined September 2017
I'm an Amsterdam-based epidemiologist interested in #ResearchIntegrity and #OpenScience, among many other things. More on my professional background can be found on https://t.co/u7uNDkEMQh
2
10
59
Comparing improperly vs properly registered RCTs submitted to @bmj_latest 2019-23, proper reg assoc’d w larger sample size, more authors, nonprofit funding; trials from Asia had higher odds of improper reg, per @david_blanco91 @SaraSchroter @DeCatalunya @eloder @UICBarcelona
0
3
6
The great @Maclomaclee on the future of journal articles: as the numbers of journals, articles increase, the value of the information they provide diminishes or depreciates. Discrete actions can help sustain the value as an economic (and moral?) good. @EdinburghUni #CAMARADES
0
8
12
Risks & barriers to #OpenResearch practices in UK higher ed id’d in the 2022-23 UK #Reproducibility Network Open & Transparent Research Practices Survey were personal (eg error), systemic/institutional (eg resources), ethical/quality @LHughesNoehrer @csmcr @naubertbonn
0
4
4
In an RCT comparing anonymous vs non-anonymous #peerreview discussions of #UAI2022 conference abstracts, there were modestly more discussion posts and reviewers felt safer expressing their opinions w anonymous review https://t.co/BiHo8bvY3G
#AI #CompSci @SCSatCMU
0
1
1
Full PRC abstract for Anonymizing Reviewers to Each Other in Peer Review Discussions: A Randomized Controlled Trial is available at https://t.co/vcDbLkJQoX
#AI #compsci #metaresearch
@SCSatCMU @mldcmu
peerreviewcongress.org
Charvi Rastogi,1 Xiangchen Song,2 Zhijing Jin,3,4 Ivan Stelmakh,5 Hal Daumé III,6 Kun Zhang,2 Nihar B. Shah2 Objective Many peer-review processes in computer science involve reviewers submitting...
0
1
2
In an RCT comparing anonymous vs non-anonymous #PeerReview discussions of #UAI22 conference abstracts, there were modestly more discussion posts and reviewers felt safer expressing their opinions w anonymous review https://t.co/BiHo8bvqe8
#AI #CompSci #metaresearch
journals.plos.org
Many peer-review processes involve reviewers submitting their independent reviews, followed by a discussion between the reviewers of each paper. A common question among policymakers is whether the...
1
2
3
In a comparison of results w vs w/out #ImmortalTimeBias (ITB) in 12 syst reviews on 21 topics, evidence reversal occurred in 5 (23.8%), where results changed from statistically significant to not (or conversely) after excluding studies with ITB @yonsei_u @METRICStanford #biostats
1
2
4
Silverchair released a report on the Future of Peer Review - https://t.co/TKQcWBZouS indicating that reviewers are largely in favor and looking forward to transparent peer review. However data on survey methods, invites and response rate is lacking.
1
1
4
Extreme outlier citation concentration patterns can distort citation-based metrics, esp the #Hindex. While not implying misconduct they can signal need for further analysis @IakovosEvd @giannis_nikole @44MichalChatzia @georgepanago5 @mvazirg @Polytechnique
https://t.co/yFtge3xtCU
1
1
3
@TheEIU @HesamSalmabadi @ASofiMahmudi @HEI_mcmaster @machealthsci @RetractionWatch The full abstract for Retractions and #Democracy Index Scores Across 167 Countries from @HesamSalmabadi
@ASofiMahmudi @HEI_mcmaster @MacHealthSci
@RetractionWatch is available at https://t.co/mVigYohUIu
peerreviewcongress.org
Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi,1 Hesam Salmabadi2 Objective To evaluate the association between countries’ democratic status and scientific article retraction rates while exploring potential factors influencing...
0
3
3
#RetractoBot auto-emails authors when papers they've cited are retracted. An RCT comparing it vs no notifications showed no difference in 1y citations of retracted articles @bengoldacre @NDevito1 @BennettOxford @UniofOxford @NDMOxford
https://t.co/qJOH6z52S5 cc: @RetractionWatch
1
4
9
Find me on BlueSky where I am live posting from the 10th International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication, at the Swissôtel in Chicago @peerrevcongress
#PRC10
https://t.co/ELuatzQ8Ct
peerreviewcongress.org
Enhancing the quality and credibility of science.
2
9
55
8 mo post-@bmj_company mandate that authors disclose #AI use, 6% of 25.1K submissions reported use, most commonly of chatbots (57%), writing assistant (13%) & visual/image processing tools (3%). @SaraSchroter @LexBouter @drHelMac @MaastrichtUMC @bmj_latest #peerreview
1
6
12
@bmj_company @SaraSchroter @LexBouter @drhelmac @MaastrichtUMC @bmj_latest Full Abstract for Authors Self-disclosed Use of Artificial Intelligence in Research: Submissions to 49 @bmj_company Biomedical Journals by @SaraSchroter @LexBouter @drHelMac @MaastrichtUMC @bmj_latest at https://t.co/XPL5g6R06I
#peerreview
peerreviewcongress.org
0
3
4
🚀 The inaugural issue of REACH (Science Integrity Alliance) is out! 📖 Features include: A spotlight on the 9th WCRI (p. 26–27) An interview on the Lancet–WCRI Commission on Research Integrity (p. 46–49) #ResearchIntegrity #WCRI2026
0
3
8
AI tool labels more than 1000 journals for ‘questionable,’ possibly shady practices #AcademicPublishing #Science #AcademicJournals #WCRI2026 #WCRI
https://t.co/7wgSB6UoNj.
science.org
New algorithm could help scientists avoid publishing in shady titles
0
4
4
Call for abstracts! Deadline Oct 15!
📢 #WCRI2026 update! 📅 May 3–6, 2026 | Vancouver ✨ Call for Abstracts – deadline Oct 15, 2025 🗓️Preliminary schedule is online, along with details on commissions, hosting opportunities, and sponsorship. 👉All links are in the replies below #ResearchIntegrity #WCRI2026
0
1
5
Curious about the future of #ResearchAssessment? Hear from leaders shaping change at #OSFair2025: national perspectives, @CoARAssessment , #OpenScience in action, responsible #AI, and open scholarly communication. 📍17 Sept | @CERN Geneva 🔗 https://t.co/fFivDscWBY
0
8
13
Peer reviewers like papers that cite them #ResearchIntegrity #PeerReviews #Reviewers #WCRI2026 #WCRI
https://t.co/Oebc8iom3G
cen.acs.org
New report finds that referees are more likely to recommend studies that refer to their own work
0
3
4