... Who they think a rev is, when it may really be several different people who across several reviews are finding similar weaknesses.
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/ …
-
Better to act to make stuff as good as we can, by listening to ECRs and URMs amongst other things, before shit like the above hits the fan.
-
Open Source is unmoderated?
-
See relevant discussion here if you missed it BTW:https://twitter.com/ctitusbrown/status/877535335609016321 …
- 3 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.