Also I can find the ref if you want, but there was a study that found that bigshot publications had higher success rates when blinded
-
-
with paper and names. But I'm genuinely interested in evidence based review systems.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Well, THAT would create some real paranoia!
-
Paranoia that you're being mean? Or that you'll start a vendetta?
-
Latter, of course.
-
So open review leads to censure as scientists strive to avoid vendettas?
-
If peer review is constructive, it can be signed. Published are only reviews of accepted papers.
-
Come on, reviews can (should) always be signed and *should* always be constructive, with independence of the outcome.
-
Even blind review could allow this. First, blinded then published and open. Not claiming it's the best system, but also not convinced always
-
open is best either. Would like to see evidence to make informed opinions.
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.