Fully understand that. What about double blind during review and open after publication? Could that help URM acceptance & create awareness?
-
-
Replying to @jeroenbosman @elneurozorro and
Something I have suggested multiple times
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @DaniRabaiotti @jeroenbosman and
hmm... but how would this possible with post-publication review? unfortunately that requires traditional peer review system
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @elneurozorro @jeroenbosman and
Not really because your name would be revealed afterwards - which it isn't at present. Similarly you could do opposite single blind
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DaniRabaiotti @jeroenbosman and
Sorry didnt mean 'traditional', but 'pre-publication'. what you propose seems great for reducing bias, and opening reviews post pub
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @elneurozorro @DaniRabaiotti and
but in post-pub review (which i'm all for), the whole paper (+ names) is out before any reviews.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @elneurozorro @DaniRabaiotti and
post-pub seems great to me, but i hadn't thought about anonymity being important w.r.t URM.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @elneurozorro @DaniRabaiotti and
i guess one way to look at it is if you get a biased reviewer, their biases are open for all to see.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @elneurozorro @DaniRabaiotti and
I think this is an idealistic view. We KNOW about bias in current publishing (and hiring, conferences, etc) and it still happens
3 replies 2 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @Julie_B92 @elneurozorro and
Yeah this whole thread has just been dudes popping in to say how calling out bad behaviour is bad/not their job.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
Yes, can't believe it's cycling again! 
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.