Latter, of course.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @o_guest @schneiderleonid and
Ideally, in my opinion, authors blinded and reviews signed. Reviewers must be accountable.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @twitemp1 @schneiderleonid and
What if blinded but then after reviewing is done named?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
To clarify, I like your idea toom
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I think evidence either way should be sought though. I worry without evidence and specifics we risk making a new equally bad or worse system
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @schneiderleonid and
Fair enough but I fear it is not a matter of “system” but of individual ethics
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Open science proposes systemic changes
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.