I think this is an idealistic view. We KNOW about bias in current publishing (and hiring, conferences, etc) and it still happens
-
-
This is very true. WRT to peer review, I favour reviewer-blinded to prevent retaliation. If someone uses anon to be a jerk Editor can fix it
-
do you think reviewer blinding can work? i identified every reviewer of my last paper by their writing style
-
I think this is a common criticism of blinding, but it will be a smaller problem for those newer to the field/those with less power
-
Ie. you recognise the "big wigs" easier than you would a PhD student. So, it may be real, but I'm not convinced it's harmful
-
also, if you're really concerned about being recognize you can probably purposely obfuscate yourself
-
Certainly can say I've helped people with that. Change their writing style.
-
For example, change UK English to sound more international etc.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
agreed, but open review is seen as solving so many probs with peer review that the name issue (for eg) is seen as implementation detail
-
I mean I guess that's an easy view to have if your name has never presented any problems for you
-
right - the system needs collaborative design including people representing these concerns actually at the design table
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.