Weighing Up Anonymity and Openness in Publication Peer Review

Hilda Bastian, Absolutely Maybe, May 15, 2015
Commentary by Stephen Downes
files/images/Peer-review-COI-284x300.jpg

Should the peer review process be open? I think so, and the result of this study support my view. "Substantiating our statements, and being accountable for what we say and how we say it when we are gatekeepers for publication, is decisive for me. That’s all the more important for people whose work or critique loses out because of status bias, and those who may be repelled from publishing and science by reviewer aggressiveness." Would I be linking to this post if it didn't support my views? Maybe not here. But I'd want it published. I would want to know about the relevant data (presumably there would have been some) arguing against my views. And one think I like about listing resources in this newsletter is that I am accountable for what I say about them - something one of the anonymous peer reviewers can say.

Views: 0 today, 156 total (since January 1, 2017).[Direct Link]
Creative Commons License. gRSShopper

Copyright 2015 Stephen Downes ~ Contact: stephen@downes.ca
This page generated by gRSShopper.
Last Updated: Oct 23, 2017 12:09 a.m.