Yes, totally, the ICLR model addresses my concerns here. If the open review is anonymous, then the criticisms can stand on their own merit.
-
-
Re-examining the purpose of the peer review system and the role that a reviewer plays in it may help. Call me naïve, but it’d say that the practice aims at guaranteeing that a paper meets some given scientific standards;
-
the reviewers’ task that of assessing whether the work conforms or can meet these standards and helping the authors to achieve them. Any reviewers' action that deviates from that function could/should perhaps be considered unethical.
-
Public comments from peers not involved or confabulated with reviewers is a different matter, yet one would expect colleagues to abide by civilised manners and professional courtesy.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.