I'm not sure "more paranoia" is an apt description of blind reviews?
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @Julie_B92 and
Surely it's very scary for ECRs if they are openly new and naive (ie their name is obviously of an unknown)?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @Julie_B92 and
Also I don't feel these pressures or stresses myself because of my personality in this specific thing, so it's good to listen to others.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @Julie_B92 and
But women or people with "foreign" names could easily be treated worse because of open review, you can imagine that right?
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @Julie_B92 and
Nobody will be treated worse in open peer review, quite the opposite. Ask editors. Problem is, if there is one, with more leniency.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @schneiderleonid @o_guest and
There is literally zero reason to believe this
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Julie_B92 @schneiderleonid and
The quote in the OP is from an editor. Semine is an editor.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @Julie_B92 and
To ignore author's status is not same as introducing additional levels of secrecy. Or shall we all tweet under assumed names also?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @schneiderleonid @Julie_B92 and
Blind to authors' identities sounds like blind review to me.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @schneiderleonid and
Also there's a diff between 100% always blind, and blind just during review process. After publication the whole review could be attached
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
with paper and names. But I'm genuinely interested in evidence based review systems.
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.