To ignore author's status is not same as introducing additional levels of secrecy. Or shall we all tweet under assumed names also?
-
-
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 -
Replying to @o_guest @Julie_B92 and
Well, THAT would create some real paranoia!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @schneiderleonid @Julie_B92 and
Paranoia that you're being mean? Or that you'll start a vendetta?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @schneiderleonid @Julie_B92 and
So open review leads to censure as scientists strive to avoid vendettas?
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @Julie_B92 and
If peer review is constructive, it can be signed. Published are only reviews of accepted papers.
3 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @schneiderleonid @o_guest and
Come on, reviews can (should) always be signed and *should* always be constructive, with independence of the outcome.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @twitemp1 @schneiderleonid and
Even blind review could allow this. First, blinded then published and open. Not claiming it's the best system, but also not convinced always
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
open is best either. Would like to see evidence to make informed opinions.
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.