No, I don't think so.
Women consistently are listened to less than men and not taken as seriously. The case you gave above means sometimes you will be respected
-
-
I worry about cases without any blinding in which biases are consistent against certain groups, e.g., women.
-
that was the start of the thread I think (I agree)
-
Sorry I missed it! Where any solutions proposed? [Will try to find start of thread which talks about this.]
-
I guess, the best we can do is to allow the whole field to witness and comment the review process, and have more reviewers per manuscript.
-
whether anybody should be anonymous, is to be determined, I think.
-
My only issue is that the whole field is aware and doesn't (except in very specific cases) cases intend to exclude women and minorities and
-
Agreed. "The whole field" reflects oppression prevalent in society. I like that this is being discussed though e.g. https://chairs-blog.acl2017.org/2017/02/19/arxiv-and-the-future-of-double-blind-conference-reviewing/ …
-
I would go further and warn that open science could actually be — it's poss! — more oppressive than society.https://www.wired.com/2017/06/diversity-open-source-even-worse-tech-overall/ …
- 6 more replies
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.