https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2212.04972/Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.enMon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMThttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44144881urn:hackerpapers:mention:2212.04972:44144881Sat, 31 May 2025 15:27:27 GMT<p>Thanks for the feedback. Totally agree. It’s a real shame we don’t have more historical peer review data. It would be great if research was fully transparent. We did find a few datasets that offer a starting point: https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04972 https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.06651 https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.09635 There’s also interesting potential in comparing preprints to their final published versions to reverse-engineer the kinds of changes peer review typically drives. A growing number of journals and publishers, like PLOS, Nature Communications, and BMJ—now publish peer review reports…</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2212.04972/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>cs.DL