Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Reviewer suggestions #227

Open
Benjamin-Lee opened this issue Sep 29, 2020 · 8 comments
Open

Reviewer suggestions #227

Benjamin-Lee opened this issue Sep 29, 2020 · 8 comments
Labels
meta Issues about the Deep Rules repository

Comments

@Benjamin-Lee
Copy link
Owner

PLOS Computational Biology requires us to propose four reviewers. Does anyone have suggestions for who would could propose?

@rasbt
Copy link
Collaborator

rasbt commented Sep 29, 2020

Here would be two. Before submitting, we need to make sure none of the co-authors is affiliated / friends with any of the reviewers we suggest.

@cgreene
Copy link
Collaborator

cgreene commented Sep 29, 2020

Looking at our author list, between the people and institutions that's a lot of potential COIs on folks who I would otherwise suggest. We don't have any folks from the UC system, and there are also a lot of potential reviewers there.

@Benjamin-Lee
Copy link
Owner Author

@cgreene and @rasbt, thank you for your suggestions. Here are the PLOS guidelines for COIs:

  • They work at the same institution or organization as an author, currently or recently
  • They collaborate with an author, currently or recently
  • They have published with an author during the past 5 years
  • They have held grants with an author, currently or recently
  • They have a financial relationship with the company who funded the research
  • They have a personal relationship with an author that does not allow them to evaluate the manuscript objectively

@rasbt
Copy link
Collaborator

rasbt commented Sep 29, 2020

Thanks for posting. Unless there are further suggestion, I suggest we keep the 4 researchers above as tentative reviewers to suggest. Everyone included in the author list would need to confirm that there is no COI. Maybe we should be tagging people here to make sure this gets seen before submission

@Benjamin-Lee
Copy link
Owner Author

@rasbt, good idea. Let's lock those in. I'll add checking for conflicts to #226. The only possible issue is that Enrico Ferrero is a coauthor on Deep Review, so he has conflicts with many of the current coauthors.

@cgreene
Copy link
Collaborator

cgreene commented Sep 30, 2020

This is a set of suggested reviewers so if we end up accidentally listing one with a conflict, that person will just decline to review. If we're going to have action items for everyone, I think focusing on the things like manuscript review, revision, and approval is the best area to put attention and eyes. Does the PLOS CB system allow you to list more than 4 reviewers? If so, we could add to this list to make it as easy as possible for the editor to identify reviewers. If some had conflicts with an author here and declined, it wouldn't make it much harder for the editor to find folks.

@Benjamin-Lee Benjamin-Lee added the meta Issues about the Deep Rules repository label Oct 4, 2020
@agitter
Copy link
Collaborator

agitter commented Jan 13, 2021

A few more suggestions. I haven't cross-referenced potential conflicts:

@juancarmona
Copy link
Collaborator

juancarmona commented Feb 5, 2021

I strongly recommend Dr. Helen van Aggelen. I previously collaborated and published with Helen when she was employed at our Philips office in Cambridge, MA. She is now based in California at a company called Zymergen. Helen's life sciences output spans an impressive array of pre-clinical research and clinical studies involving AI/ML. There is no conflict of interest on my end regarding this nomination. Personally, I think it would be interesting to have at least 1 industry-based scientist as a reviewer for additional perspective.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
meta Issues about the Deep Rules repository
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants