Post

James Fraser
@fraserlab.com

While there are parts of this manuscript that seem to be overhyped, I don't think peer review alone is the solution you make it out to be here. My bet is that this will appear in a "peer reviewed" venue before too long - and that the content will only be modestly changed. 1/

Buzz Baum@buzzbaum.bsky.social

In making its case, the text www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6... plays loose with usual notions of: I) A paper (intro (summary of field), results, figures, methods, discussion) II) A cell III) Semipermeable membrane (has holes), growth (via fusion), division (via external force), cell cycle, heredity…

biorxiv.orgbiorxiv.org

1 repost4 likes

James Fraser
@fraserlab.com

Lots of papers with hype pass peer review (Arsenic Life springs to mind) What's cool here is that there is now a preprint! Comment away - not just on here. Write a @prereview.bsky.social or use the new "hypothesis" layer to comment on @biorxivpreprint.bsky.social : openrxiv.org/hypothesis-c... 2/

openrxiv.orgIntroducing Hypothesis commenting on bioRxiv and medRxiv: an updated way to engage with preprints - openRxivAn important part of our mission at openRxiv is to collaborate with other organizations to improve science communication and promote interoperability. Preprints are just one part of the research workf...
James Fraser
@fraserlab.com

There are challenges for sure - but let's also not pretend that the journal gatekeeping system prevents abuse or gives absolute signals-of-trust 3/

Alex Crits-Christoph@acritschristoph.bsky.social

It is a pretty clear example of the challenges of science without journals [or imaginable future superior signals of in-field trust] In such a world science often becomes a game of who you know, and who has the best media connections and team, and all the (worse, IMO) biases that go with that