Daniel Evanko

Director of Journal Operations and Systems at the American Association for Cancer Research. Tweets are my own.

[Bahar: mstdn.social/@bahar @mehmanib]

Another clear evidence of reviewers bias, A=Anonymized, L=lower prominence, H=higher prominence #PRC9

[Daniel Evanko @devanko]

@mehmanib Cleanest evidence I’ve ever seen of substantial review bias based on identity of author, Completely agree that double-blind anonymization would not fix because prominent authors can almost always be identified. Really depressing!

[AACR @AACR]

The AACR is outraged by the widespread suffering and death due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. @AACR_CEO and @AACRPres join the world in calling for an immediate end to the aggression and for the protection of cancer patients, researchers, and providers. https://t.co/uqQ38aEN6E

[Daniel Evanko @devanko]

@Proofig @Nature @Richvn This tool has certainly made our job so much easier and has already prevented the publication of dozens of duplicated images. Also very happy with how responsive the Proofig team is to feature requests. The editor who requested the newly added notes feature loves it.

[Cancer Research Communications @CRC_AACR]

Read how #AI supports @AACR’s efforts in addressing image duplication https://t.co/qytrQ900SL #reproducibility

[Daniel Evanko @devanko]

Amazing! Cleaning up from former occupant of my new office and found a copy of @naturemethods Visualizing Biological Data collection I created with @seaniod @ngehlenborg @bangwong and others for 2010 @bioviz conf. Great memories. Miss all you and working on #Datavisualization

[Daniel Evanko @devanko]

@heatherlifts @Richvn @AACR Agreed. No tool will be perfect or infallible. I find it somewhat troubling that some appear to be putting off the use of what is available in hopes of finding the "perfect" tool. Research and publication is intrinsically messy. All we can do is our reasonable best to improve it.

[Daniel Evanko @devanko]

@Richvn @AACR We used to do some manual screening but found that using the AI tool first appears to be much more efficient and spots things that manual screening misses. Our workflow also conveniently embeds the PhD editors into the process from the start, limiting false positives.

[Richard Van Noorden @Richvn]

New story: I've learnt of at least four journal publishers adopting AI software to automatedly flag duplicated images in papers, pre-publication. Still needs editorial oversight, but an early taste of how image-screening AI cld sweep through sector. (1/3) https://t.co/TkftHj5fFM

[Daniel Evanko @devanko]

Riding on ⁦@GoZwift⁩ with ⁦@MarkCavendish⁩ right now!

[Daniel Evanko @devanko]

@rita_strack Looks like a great collection @rita_strack. Thanks for making it free to access so I could download the articles for reading. My free @naturemethods subscription was unfortunately cancelled☹️

[Rita Strack @rita_strack]

Finally out after almost a year in the works is our Focus issue on Reporting and reproducibility in microscopy!! I can only describe this as a labor of love on the parts of the authors, referees, and our team, and we're so pleased to share this with you all.

[Daniel Evanko @devanko]

Is cancer biology research reproducible? After a decade of work, the answer still isn’t clear. What is clear is that researchers aren't good at describing how they did their study. This is improving, but we need to do better! https://t.co/ZS53TfLFEX via @statnews

[Daniel Evanko @devanko]

To improve author reporting of experimental methods and increase #reproducibility, the @AACR journals will no longer constrain authors by including the methods section when calculating manuscript/article length. https://t.co/9v12Dlce5O

[Daniel Evanko @devanko]

@OSFramework @ScienceExchange @eLife @Arnold_Ventures Great to see the summary and meta analysis of this project, and a beautiful new website presenting the work. The large decrease in effect sizes is definitely a concern, but the cause is still unknown. Researchers MUST do a better job reporting exactly how they do their studies.

[Peer Review Congress #PRC11 Coming 2029! @peerrevcongress]

The PRC abstract submission portal is now open! We are now accepting abstracts of studies describing processes to improve scientific research and scholarly commentary. Learn more and submit your abstract at https://t.co/zOQFIZKqmc
@METRICStanford @bmj_latest @JAMA_current

[Cancer Research Communications @CRC_AACR]

The @AACR is pleased to announce the launch of a new open access journal, Cancer Research Communications! To read the inaugural articles and to learn more about submitting your research, visit https://t.co/4G5fSGDqR6 #cancerresearch #openaccess

[Peer Review Congress #PRC11 Coming 2029! @peerrevcongress]

FREE Virtual Symposium!
Advancing the Science of Scientific Publishing
Call for Research and Abstracts for the Ninth Peer Review Congress
September 14, 2021
11:00 AM – 12:30 PM ET | 3:00 – 4:30 PM GMT
Register: https://t.co/oX0QFbR2cB
Learn More: https://t.co/j8hl2fUkJA

[Cancer Research @CR_AACR]

Register now for the AACR Journals Webinar–
@SciScore: An Effective Tool that Verifies Rigor Criteria and Research Resources
December 7 at 11AM EST.
Featuring @Anitabandrowski @mathein
https://t.co/7040TMe8KX