Yes, totally, the ICLR model addresses my concerns here. If the open review is anonymous, then the criticisms can stand on their own merit.
-
-
Sure but let's not imagine that it is always easy to hide one's identity, particularly for a highly prominent person, a lengthy review and a very contentious issue.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
anonymous comments should always be possible (e.g. in a preprint server's commenting system). but people, of course, also need to be free to blog and write papers, where they sign as the author. i hope we can just learn to be civil and stand by our scientific judgments.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
I agree, Niko, but you can abide by the principle of ppl being free to openly publish their criticisms in their name (on a blog, say) once an art. is published. I would argue that first reviewers have a duty not to influence new reviewers except via ideas (e.g. not credentials).
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
-
Replying to @tyrell_turing @andpru and
Poisoning the well as
@nathanieldaw mentioned is a real issue. That's why AFAIC NeurIPS and other conferences have a specific standard with blinding, replies from authors, and then de-anonymising when a paper is accepted.2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @tyrell_turing and
Standards and explicit expectations are needed for open review just like we have standards for open data, open access, open source, etc. Otherwise it's chaos.
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @tyrell_turing and
During a compsci conference submission for example, their system deems the existence of a preprint irrelevant. The article is still blinded and sent through the standardised system for review.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @tyrell_turing and
In neuro it's journals not conferences, and in this case a closed journal, which doesn't have an explicit procedure like this to tell one what to do if there is a preprint, I guess... For sure, it wasn't designed to deal with what Niko did at all.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes
So it stands to reason more consent (and community-wide dialogue) should have been sought before, as others have said, the well became poisoned. I wonder what others who Niko blogged about feel...
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @tyrell_turing and
Another question that springs to mind is if one is radically opposed to closed journals what should they do? Accepting to review for closed journals is a complex issue if you disagree with their system. And, as seen here, mixing and matching causes harm to ECRs and generally.
0 replies 1 retweet 5 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.