When reviewers know authors' identities (vs. blind), they pick high status authors more. Reviewers=human=biased http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/11/13/1707323114.full.pdf …
-
-
Replying to @siminevazire @o_guest
This is not all bad, though. In an ideal world, everyone is equally scrutinized. In the real one, I will spend more time on a paper from lab previously guilty of fraud. And give others benefit of the doubt.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
So being biased is a good idea?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Depends on the nature of the bias...
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Editors, reviewers or whoever is dealing with your paper should only focus on the content of your paper not on your name or status or why you couldn't find any positive evidence.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
The sad truth is that nepotism is rife in science though.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
It is sad, Dr. Guest :( As scientists it is your job to educate people. I am not a scientist but if a scientist told me not be biased against someone or nepotism is bad and then did exactly the opposite themselves, I wouldn't be very happy about it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
It's not my job exactly to educate people but to do basic research. Either way science is full of examples of bias from famous to infamous to banal.
-
-
Agreed. And my apologies, I did not mean you when I said it's your job.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.