Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Double-blind vs. single-blind review
Even more, you can easily identify the authors because usually they include references to their previous publications to build the new hypothesis ... 2012/11/8 Adam Jenkins adam.jenk...@gmail.com Most of my reviewing for conference and journals was double blind, although the effectiveness of it was always a bit questionable, as in many cases you can, as a reviewer, identify the author from the style and argument. This tends to get worse in specialised areas, where the pool of researchers is necessarily small. Adam On 7 November 2012 06:16, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot speak for other disciplines but double-blind is not standard in Computer Science. ** ** Kerry ** ** ** ** ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Prof. Manuel Palomo Duarte, PhD Software Process Improvement and Formal Methods group (SPIFM). Degree Coordinator for Computer Science. Department of Computer Science. Escuela Superior de Ingenieria. C/ Chile, 1 11002 - Cadiz (Spain) University of Cadiz http://neptuno.uca.es/~mpalomo Tlf: (+34) 956 015483 Mobile phone: (+34) 649 280080 Mobile phone from University network: 45483 Fax: (+34) 956 015139 Aviso legal: Este mensaje (incluyendo los ficheros adjuntos) puede contener información confidencial, dirigida a un destinatario y objetivo específico. Si usted no es el destinatario del mismo le pido disculpas, y le pido que elimine este correo, evitando cualquier divulgación, copia o distribución de su contenido, así como desarrollar o ejecutar cualquier acción basada en el mismo. -- Legal Notice: This message (including the attached files) contains confidential information, directed to a specific addressee and objective. In case you are not the addressee of the same, I apologize. And I ask you to delete this mail, and not to resend, copy or distribute its content, as well as develop or execute any action based on the same. ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Double-blind vs. single-blind review
I don't thnk opening peer reviewing would be a good idea. Reviewer must keep unknown, or she could suffer preasures (even bribes) from authors. In my opinion only the editor must communicate with the reviewers 2012/11/8 koltzenb...@w4w.net agree, ... so it is up to you as a reviewer what you do with your blindness :-) doesn't this point in the direction of - plus - is + ? I mean: why not do open peer reviewing? Claudia On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:43:39 +0100, Manuel Palomo Duarte wrote Even more, you can easily identify the authors because usually they include references to their previous publications to build the new hypothesis ... 2012/11/8 Adam Jenkins adam.jenk...@gmail.com Most of my reviewing for conference and journals was double blind, although the effectiveness of it was always a bit questionable, as in many cases you can, as a reviewer, identify the author from the style and argument. This tends to get worse in specialised areas, where the pool of researchers is necessarily small. Adam On 7 November 2012 06:16, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot speak for other disciplines but double-blind is not standard in Computer Science. ** ** Kerry ** ** ** ** ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Prof. Manuel Palomo Duarte, PhD Software Process Improvement and Formal Methods group (SPIFM). Degree Coordinator for Computer Science. Department of Computer Science. Escuela Superior de Ingenieria. C/ Chile, 1 11002 - Cadiz (Spain) University of Cadiz http://neptuno.uca.es/~mpalomo Tlf: (+34) 956 015483 Mobile phone: (+34) 649 280080 Mobile phone from University network: 45483 Fax: (+34) 956 015139 Aviso legal: Este mensaje (incluyendo los ficheros adjuntos) puede contener información confidencial, dirigida a un destinatario y objetivo específico. Si usted no es el destinatario del mismo le pido disculpas, y le pido que elimine este correo, evitando cualquier divulgación, copia o distribución de su contenido, así como desarrollar o ejecutar cualquier acción basada en el mismo. -- Legal Notice: This message (including the attached files) contains confidential information, directed to a specific addressee and objective. In case you are not the addressee of the same, I apologize. And I ask you to delete this mail, and not to resend, copy or distribute its content, as well as develop or execute any action based on the same. thanks cheers, Claudia koltzenb...@w4w.net ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Prof. Manuel Palomo Duarte, PhD Software Process Improvement and Formal Methods group (SPIFM). Degree Coordinator for Computer Science. Department of Computer Science. Escuela Superior de Ingenieria. C/ Chile, 1 11002 - Cadiz (Spain) University of Cadiz http://neptuno.uca.es/~mpalomo Tlf: (+34) 956 015483 Mobile phone: (+34) 649 280080 Mobile phone from University network: 45483 Fax: (+34) 956 015139 Aviso legal: Este mensaje (incluyendo los ficheros adjuntos) puede contener información confidencial, dirigida a un destinatario y objetivo específico. Si usted no es el destinatario del mismo le pido disculpas, y le pido que elimine este correo, evitando cualquier divulgación, copia o distribución de su contenido, así como desarrollar o ejecutar cualquier acción basada en el mismo. -- Legal Notice: This message (including the attached files) contains confidential information, directed to a specific addressee and objective. In case you are not the addressee of the same, I apologize. And I ask you to delete this mail, and not to resend, copy or distribute its content, as well as develop or execute any action based on the same. ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Double-blind vs. single-blind review
I don't agree. I a hard argument can be considered by some people as a preasure, while other could not. In fact, what's the gain in knowing who is reviewing a paper? 2012/11/8 koltzenb...@w4w.net well, any attempts at pressures or bribes could easily be made known, couldn't they? On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:56:35 +0100, Manuel Palomo Duarte wrote I don't thnk opening peer reviewing would be a good idea. Reviewer must keep unknown, or she could suffer preasures (even bribes) from authors. In my opinion only the editor must communicate with the reviewers 2012/11/8 koltzenb...@w4w.net agree, ... so it is up to you as a reviewer what you do with your blindness :-) doesn't this point in the direction of - plus - is + ? I mean: why not do open peer reviewing? Claudia On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:43:39 +0100, Manuel Palomo Duarte wrote Even more, you can easily identify the authors because usually they include references to their previous publications to build the new hypothesis ... 2012/11/8 Adam Jenkins adam.jenk...@gmail.com Most of my reviewing for conference and journals was double blind, although the effectiveness of it was always a bit questionable, as in many cases you can, as a reviewer, identify the author from the style and argument. This tends to get worse in specialised areas, where the pool of researchers is necessarily small. Adam On 7 November 2012 06:16, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot speak for other disciplines but double-blind is not standard in Computer Science. ** ** Kerry ** ** ** ** ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Prof. Manuel Palomo Duarte, PhD Software Process Improvement and Formal Methods group (SPIFM). Degree Coordinator for Computer Science. Department of Computer Science. Escuela Superior de Ingenieria. C/ Chile, 1 11002 - Cadiz (Spain) University of Cadiz http://neptuno.uca.es/~mpalomo Tlf: (+34) 956 015483 Mobile phone: (+34) 649 280080 Mobile phone from University network: 45483 Fax: (+34) 956 015139 Aviso legal: Este mensaje (incluyendo los ficheros adjuntos) puede contener información confidencial, dirigida a un destinatario y objetivo específico. Si usted no es el destinatario del mismo le pido disculpas, y le pido que elimine este correo, evitando cualquier divulgación, copia o distribución de su contenido, así como desarrollar o ejecutar cualquier acción basada en el mismo. -- Legal Notice: This message (including the attached files) contains confidential information, directed to a specific addressee and objective. In case you are not the addressee of the same, I apologize. And I ask you to delete this mail, and not to resend, copy or distribute its content, as well as develop or execute any action based on the same. thanks cheers, Claudia koltzenb...@w4w.net ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Prof. Manuel Palomo Duarte, PhD Software Process Improvement and Formal Methods group (SPIFM). Degree Coordinator for Computer Science. Department of Computer Science. Escuela Superior de Ingenieria. C/ Chile, 1 11002 - Cadiz (Spain) University of Cadiz http://neptuno.uca.es/~mpalomo Tlf: (+34) 956 015483 Mobile phone: (+34) 649 280080 Mobile phone from University network: 45483 Fax: (+34) 956 015139 Aviso legal: Este mensaje (incluyendo los ficheros adjuntos) puede contener información confidencial, dirigida a un destinatario y objetivo específico. Si usted no es el destinatario del mismo le pido disculpas, y le pido que elimine este correo, evitando cualquier divulgación, copia o distribución de su contenido, así como desarrollar o ejecutar cualquier acción basada en el mismo. -- Legal Notice: This message (including the attached files) contains confidential information, directed to a specific addressee and objective. In case you are not the addressee of the same, I apologize. And I ask you to delete this mail, and not to resend, copy or distribute its content, as well as develop or execute any action based on the same. thanks cheers, Claudia koltzenb...@w4w.net ___
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Double-blind vs. single-blind review
Manuel asks: In fact, what's the gain in knowing who is reviewing a paper? let us look at this from another angle, maybe: As reviewers in open reviewing we get a chance of becoming more aware of our own inclinations in the face of public visibility vis-a-vis objectivity, well-reflected arguments and more transparency in general. Q: Why should authors of research have to bow to any authority that is hiding its identity and tendencies? actually, so far I have heard no convincing arguments why in the age of open Wikis any reviewer's identity should stay behind closed doors. Maybe you have another argument to convince me? Claudia On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:29:25 +0100, Manuel Palomo Duarte wrote I don't agree. I a hard argument can be considered by some people as a preasure, while other could not. In fact, what's the gain in knowing who is reviewing a paper? 2012/11/8 koltzenb...@w4w.net well, any attempts at pressures or bribes could easily be made known, couldn't they? On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:56:35 +0100, Manuel Palomo Duarte wrote I don't thnk opening peer reviewing would be a good idea. Reviewer must keep unknown, or she could suffer preasures (even bribes) from authors. In my opinion only the editor must communicate with the reviewers 2012/11/8 koltzenb...@w4w.net agree, ... so it is up to you as a reviewer what you do with your blindness :-) doesn't this point in the direction of - plus - is + ? I mean: why not do open peer reviewing? Claudia On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:43:39 +0100, Manuel Palomo Duarte wrote Even more, you can easily identify the authors because usually they include references to their previous publications to build the new hypothesis ... 2012/11/8 Adam Jenkins adam.jenk...@gmail.com Most of my reviewing for conference and journals was double blind, although the effectiveness of it was always a bit questionable, as in many cases you can, as a reviewer, identify the author from the style and argument. This tends to get worse in specialised areas, where the pool of researchers is necessarily small. Adam On 7 November 2012 06:16, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot speak for other disciplines but double-blind is not standard in Computer Science. ** ** Kerry ** ** ** ** ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Prof. Manuel Palomo Duarte, PhD Software Process Improvement and Formal Methods group (SPIFM). Degree Coordinator for Computer Science. Department of Computer Science. Escuela Superior de Ingenieria. C/ Chile, 1 11002 - Cadiz (Spain) University of Cadiz http://neptuno.uca.es/~mpalomo Tlf: (+34) 956 015483 Mobile phone: (+34) 649 280080 Mobile phone from University network: 45483 Fax: (+34) 956 015139 Aviso legal: Este mensaje (incluyendo los ficheros adjuntos) puede contener información confidencial, dirigida a un destinatario y objetivo específico. Si usted no es el destinatario del mismo le pido disculpas, y le pido que elimine este correo, evitando cualquier divulgación, copia o distribución de su contenido, así como desarrollar o ejecutar cualquier acción basada en el mismo. -- Legal Notice: This message (including the attached files) contains confidential information, directed to a specific addressee and objective. In case you are not the addressee of the same, I apologize. And I ask you to delete this mail, and not to resend, copy or distribute its content, as well as develop or execute any action based on the same. thanks cheers, Claudia koltzenb...@w4w.net ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Prof. Manuel Palomo Duarte, PhD Software Process Improvement and Formal Methods group (SPIFM). Degree Coordinator for Computer Science. Department of Computer Science. Escuela Superior de Ingenieria. C/ Chile, 1 11002 - Cadiz (Spain) University of Cadiz http://neptuno.uca.es/~mpalomo Tlf: (+34) 956 015483 Mobile phone: (+34) 649 280080 Mobile phone from University network: 45483 Fax: (+34) 956 015139 Aviso legal: Este
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Double-blind vs. single-blind review
no. Also, academic world may be quite small in some disciplines. If a reviewer knows that s/he may be evaluated by the author some time in the future (be it in a journal review, or possibly also in career promotion reviews, too) s/he will be definitely motivated not to report any major flaws, especially if the reviewed author is a big shot. Single blind review is a must. In my view, the advantages of double blind review are also important, even if practically the actual anonymity may not always be preserved. In double blind review the bottom line is that it sometimes may and up as a single blind review, but in many cases it does not and then it is more fair. best, dj On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:08 AM, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote: well, any attempts at pressures or bribes could easily be made known, couldn't they? On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:56:35 +0100, Manuel Palomo Duarte wrote I don't thnk opening peer reviewing would be a good idea. Reviewer must keep unknown, or she could suffer preasures (even bribes) from authors. In my opinion only the editor must communicate with the reviewers 2012/11/8 koltzenb...@w4w.net agree, ... so it is up to you as a reviewer what you do with your blindness :-) doesn't this point in the direction of - plus - is + ? I mean: why not do open peer reviewing? Claudia On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:43:39 +0100, Manuel Palomo Duarte wrote Even more, you can easily identify the authors because usually they include references to their previous publications to build the new hypothesis ... 2012/11/8 Adam Jenkins adam.jenk...@gmail.com Most of my reviewing for conference and journals was double blind, although the effectiveness of it was always a bit questionable, as in many cases you can, as a reviewer, identify the author from the style and argument. This tends to get worse in specialised areas, where the pool of researchers is necessarily small. Adam On 7 November 2012 06:16, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot speak for other disciplines but double-blind is not standard in Computer Science. ** ** Kerry ** ** ** ** ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Prof. Manuel Palomo Duarte, PhD Software Process Improvement and Formal Methods group (SPIFM). Degree Coordinator for Computer Science. Department of Computer Science. Escuela Superior de Ingenieria. C/ Chile, 1 11002 - Cadiz (Spain) University of Cadiz http://neptuno.uca.es/~mpalomo Tlf: (+34) 956 015483 Mobile phone: (+34) 649 280080 Mobile phone from University network: 45483 Fax: (+34) 956 015139 Aviso legal: Este mensaje (incluyendo los ficheros adjuntos) puede contener información confidencial, dirigida a un destinatario y objetivo específico. Si usted no es el destinatario del mismo le pido disculpas, y le pido que elimine este correo, evitando cualquier divulgación, copia o distribución de su contenido, así como desarrollar o ejecutar cualquier acción basada en el mismo. -- Legal Notice: This message (including the attached files) contains confidential information, directed to a specific addressee and objective. In case you are not the addressee of the same, I apologize. And I ask you to delete this mail, and not to resend, copy or distribute its content, as well as develop or execute any action based on the same. thanks cheers, Claudia koltzenb...@w4w.net ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Prof. Manuel Palomo Duarte, PhD Software Process Improvement and Formal Methods group (SPIFM). Degree Coordinator for Computer Science. Department of Computer Science. Escuela Superior de Ingenieria. C/ Chile, 1 11002 - Cadiz (Spain) University of Cadiz http://neptuno.uca.es/~mpalomo Tlf: (+34) 956 015483 Mobile phone: (+34) 649 280080 Mobile phone from University network: 45483 Fax: (+34) 956 015139 Aviso legal: Este mensaje (incluyendo los ficheros adjuntos) puede contener información confidencial, dirigida a un destinatario y objetivo específico. Si usted no es el destinatario del mismo le pido disculpas, y le pido que elimine este correo, evitando cualquier divulgación, copia o distribución de su contenido, así
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Double-blind vs. single-blind review
hm, sadly enough I must agree that you seem to be raising important real-life points, Dariusz. But am I getting you correctly that you think that major flaws will only be pointed out in a review if the reviewer can officially stay anonymous? in your experience, Dariusz, does this mean reviewers feel fine in placing tons of trust in the editors and their helphands who organize the review not to tell authors who was their most brilliant reviewer? anyway, I think we need a reviewing system where fair and open criticism can flourish. in my view of the matter, there will be no one-size-fits-all because self-organized communities do have a multicultural tendency to self-organize :-) one example system that we night also discuss and try out for the Wiki Research Journal is a combination of open and closed peer review: see ACP who, in a highly specialised community, do 8 weeks of post publication public discussion http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and- physics.net/review/review_process_and_interactive_public_discussion.html let me suggest we now go to the wiki page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas and continue our debate on the peer review model in a pro/contra/undecided style there and keep in mind that we are not talking about a traditional journal here but about a new research journal about Wikis and about research done by using Wikis http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas/Volunteers see you, Claudia koltzenb...@w4w.net On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:44:13 +0100, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote no. Also, academic world may be quite small in some disciplines. If a reviewer knows that s/he may be evaluated by the author some time in the future (be it in a journal review, or possibly also in career promotion reviews, too) s/he will be definitely motivated not to report any major flaws, especially if the reviewed author is a big shot. Single blind review is a must. In my view, the advantages of double blind review are also important, even if practically the actual anonymity may not always be preserved. In double blind review the bottom line is that it sometimes may and up as a single blind review, but in many cases it does not and then it is more fair. best, dj On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:08 AM, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote: well, any attempts at pressures or bribes could easily be made known, couldn't they? On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:56:35 +0100, Manuel Palomo Duarte wrote I don't thnk opening peer reviewing would be a good idea. Reviewer must keep unknown, or she could suffer preasures (even bribes) from authors. In my opinion only the editor must communicate with the reviewers 2012/11/8 koltzenb...@w4w.net agree, ... so it is up to you as a reviewer what you do with your blindness :-) doesn't this point in the direction of - plus - is + ? I mean: why not do open peer reviewing? Claudia On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:43:39 +0100, Manuel Palomo Duarte wrote Even more, you can easily identify the authors because usually they include references to their previous publications to build the new hypothesis ... 2012/11/8 Adam Jenkins adam.jenk...@gmail.com Most of my reviewing for conference and journals was double blind, although the effectiveness of it was always a bit questionable, as in many cases you can, as a reviewer, identify the author from the style and argument. This tends to get worse in specialised areas, where the pool of researchers is necessarily small. Adam On 7 November 2012 06:16, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot speak for other disciplines but double-blind is not standard in Computer Science. ** ** Kerry ** ** ** ** ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Prof. Manuel Palomo Duarte, PhD Software Process Improvement and Formal Methods group (SPIFM). Degree Coordinator for Computer Science. Department of Computer Science. Escuela Superior de Ingenieria. C/ Chile, 1 11002 - Cadiz (Spain) University of Cadiz http://neptuno.uca.es/~mpalomo Tlf: (+34) 956 015483 Mobile phone: (+34) 649 280080 Mobile phone from University network: 45483 Fax: (+34) 956 015139 Aviso legal: Este mensaje (incluyendo los ficheros adjuntos) puede contener información confidencial, dirigida a un destinatario y objetivo específico.
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Double-blind vs. single-blind review
hi, On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:17 AM, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote: hm, sadly enough I must agree that you seem to be raising important real-life points, Dariusz. But am I getting you correctly that you think that major flaws will only be pointed out in a review if the reviewer can officially stay anonymous? well, not only officially, but also practically. It is an important ethical responsibility of the managing editor to ensure anonymity of the reviewers, so that they can be honest. in your experience, Dariusz, does this mean reviewers feel fine in placing tons of trust in the editors and their helphands who organize the review not to tell authors who was their most brilliant reviewer? Yes, that is my experience. In fact, I have never seen the editor revealing the reviewer's identity. I have heard of one such instance, when the author discovered the reviewer's identity simply because of the high praises the reviewer was making for his work, and because of pushing the reviewer's works as suggested needed literature, but the only reaction from the editor was matter-of-factly allowing not to incorporate these suggestions from the review and excluding the reviewer from further process. and keep in mind that we are not talking about a traditional journal here but about a new research journal about Wikis and about research done by using Wikis that's true and experimenting with the format is a good idea! I think, for example, that publishing reviews and responses to them, and allowing commenting on them is a good idea. I'm quite convinced though that the anonymity of reviewers helps. Of course, it can be probably be also played with and tested. best, dj ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Double-blind vs. single-blind review
If the question is only how to set up a journal then I wonder if this should be taking place off-list, since that's not really a wiki research question. If it is a question about how to set up a journal that specifically meshes with the socio-technical patterns used by wiki communities, then of course it is appropriate for discussion here. (And obviously I think it's the latter!) the question may also be how to set up a journal relevant for research specific for wiki-communities, that stands a chance of becoming the leading journal (ranked, listed, prestigious, etc.) in some related fields and then questions on which traditional academic practices of a journal are necessary, and which are optional, obviously is both important, and of interest for this list. Just saying. dj ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Double-blind vs. single-blind review
The woman discrimination is something the journal should care about. Any idea on how to face it? 2012/11/6 Chitu Okoli chitu.ok...@concordia.ca Actually, I think it is more reasonable to use double-blind by default unless authors request single-blind. If single-blind were the default, it would be difficult to request double-blind as exceptions: * If there is a big name researcher who wants to take advantage of his/her reputation, he/she would not request double-blind. * If there is a big name researcher who is modest and does not think highly of himself/herself, he/she would not request double-blind. * If there is a minority or woman researcher afraid of discrimination, if he/she requested double-blind, the reviewers would reasonably guess that the author(s) are minorities or women. Thus, I think double-blind as a default for everyone with single-blind as special exception would be the more practical and fairer general policy. With the increase of preprints and working papers (e.g. arXiv and SSRN), I think author anonymity is becoming increasingly impractical. In any case, these comments mainly apply to social science journals; I still think that single-blind makes more sense for computer science journals. ~ Chitu Kerry Raymond a écrit : I think a compromise position is to use single-blind unless the authors request double-blind and are therefore prepared to undertake the ridiculous gymnastics required. Certainly (in computer science) I would agree that it is very hard for any established researcher publishing in their normal field to successfully disguise their identify. Sent from my iPad On 05/11/2012, at 8:30 AM, Chitu Okoli chitu.ok...@concordia.ca chitu.ok...@concordia.ca wrote: Although in theory double-blind review is superior to single-blind, in practice double-blind vs. single-blind review has very little to do with journal quality. It is much more a matter of disciplinary culture. (Single-blind: authors don't know who the reviewers are, but reviewers do know who authors are; Double-blind: neither authors nor reviewers know who each other are) Yes, I am certainly aware of studies that show that double-blind reviewing does indeed reduce the bias towards publishing famous researchers and reduces the bias against publishing work by minority researchers and women. So, I believe that double-blind reviewing is indeed meaningful. However, my general observation is that the decision for a journal to be double-blind or single-blind is mainly a matter of disciplinary tradition. To make a very gross generalization, social science journals are generally double-blind, whereas natural science and mathematical science journals are generally single-blind. This observation is very relevant to this discussion, because the wiki-research-l community sits in between this divide. My perception is that 90% of people who post on this list are in information systems (double-blind), computer science (single-blind) or information science (either double- or single-blind). If we can accept that single-blind journals can be considered as high-quality as well, then I feel a journal with wikified peer review would do much better being single-blind, especially if its subject matter is wiki-related topics. I understand that one of the primary reasons many journals decide against going double-blind is because of the ridiculous gymnastics that have to be undertaken in many cases to try to hide authors' identity. In computer science, where many researchers make their programs available on the Web, and much of their research concerns particular websites that they have developed, double-blinding would often be impossible if attempted--reviewers couldn't properly evaluate the work without knowing who created it. I think this is very much the case for a wiki-based peer review system for much wiki-related research. Of course, the official reviewers should remain anonymous. (I know that open peer review has often been proposed--authors and reviewers know each others' identities--and has even been experimented with on several occasions, but it does not seem to be a quality improvement--I can post citations if anyone is interested.) It is much easier to hide the identity of the official reviewers than it is to hide that of the authors, and the benefits of single-blinding are substantial and proven. ~ Chitu ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Prof. Manuel Palomo Duarte, PhD Software Process Improvement and Formal Methods group (SPIFM). Degree Coordinator for Computer Science. Department of Computer Science. Escuela Superior de Ingenieria. C/ Chile, 1 11002 - Cadiz (Spain) University of Cadiz http://neptuno.uca.es/~mpalomo Tlf: (+34) 956 015483 Mobile phone: (+34)
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Double-blind vs. single-blind review
just out of curiosity, what could be the reasonable expected purposes for requesting a single-blind review instead of a standard double-blind in your model? best, dj On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:56 AM, Chitu Okoli chitu.ok...@concordia.cawrote: Actually, I think it is more reasonable to use double-blind by default unless authors request single-blind. If single-blind were the default, it would be difficult to request double-blind as exceptions: * If there is a big name researcher who wants to take advantage of his/her reputation, he/she would not request double-blind. * If there is a big name researcher who is modest and does not think highly of himself/herself, he/she would not request double-blind. * If there is a minority or woman researcher afraid of discrimination, if he/she requested double-blind, the reviewers would reasonably guess that the author(s) are minorities or women. Thus, I think double-blind as a default for everyone with single-blind as special exception would be the more practical and fairer general policy. With the increase of preprints and working papers (e.g. arXiv and SSRN), I think author anonymity is becoming increasingly impractical. In any case, these comments mainly apply to social science journals; I still think that single-blind makes more sense for computer science journals. ~ Chitu Kerry Raymond a écrit : I think a compromise position is to use single-blind unless the authors request double-blind and are therefore prepared to undertake the ridiculous gymnastics required. Certainly (in computer science) I would agree that it is very hard for any established researcher publishing in their normal field to successfully disguise their identify. Sent from my iPad On 05/11/2012, at 8:30 AM, Chitu Okoli chitu.ok...@concordia.ca chitu.ok...@concordia.ca wrote: Although in theory double-blind review is superior to single-blind, in practice double-blind vs. single-blind review has very little to do with journal quality. It is much more a matter of disciplinary culture. (Single-blind: authors don't know who the reviewers are, but reviewers do know who authors are; Double-blind: neither authors nor reviewers know who each other are) Yes, I am certainly aware of studies that show that double-blind reviewing does indeed reduce the bias towards publishing famous researchers and reduces the bias against publishing work by minority researchers and women. So, I believe that double-blind reviewing is indeed meaningful. However, my general observation is that the decision for a journal to be double-blind or single-blind is mainly a matter of disciplinary tradition. To make a very gross generalization, social science journals are generally double-blind, whereas natural science and mathematical science journals are generally single-blind. This observation is very relevant to this discussion, because the wiki-research-l community sits in between this divide. My perception is that 90% of people who post on this list are in information systems (double-blind), computer science (single-blind) or information science (either double- or single-blind). If we can accept that single-blind journals can be considered as high-quality as well, then I feel a journal with wikified peer review would do much better being single-blind, especially if its subject matter is wiki-related topics. I understand that one of the primary reasons many journals decide against going double-blind is because of the ridiculous gymnastics that have to be undertaken in many cases to try to hide authors' identity. In computer science, where many researchers make their programs available on the Web, and much of their research concerns particular websites that they have developed, double-blinding would often be impossible if attempted--reviewers couldn't properly evaluate the work without knowing who created it. I think this is very much the case for a wiki-based peer review system for much wiki-related research. Of course, the official reviewers should remain anonymous. (I know that open peer review has often been proposed--authors and reviewers know each others' identities--and has even been experimented with on several occasions, but it does not seem to be a quality improvement--I can post citations if anyone is interested.) It is much easier to hide the identity of the official reviewers than it is to hide that of the authors, and the benefits of single-blinding are substantial and proven. ~ Chitu ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- __ dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Double-blind vs. single-blind review
Here are a few scenarios: * The research topic concerns a public website. The website identifies the authors. The paper makes no sense without explicitly identifying the website. Thus, authors should be able to request single-blind review. Note that this scenario very much applies to this entire discussion of a new research journal that uses wiki-based research development. I don't know if you caught Kerry Raymond's comment on this thread (I copy it below), which explains this point very succinctly. * Authors have posted a working paper which has been on the web for a long time, and is known to most researchers in that field of interest (i.e. most potential and qualified reviewers for the peer-reviewed version). In this case, I would think that reviewers should not be excluded for no reason other than they know the authors' identity. One of the most backward policies I've ever seen related to this is JIBS's policy to protect double-blind review: "Authors should also not post their submitted manuscript (including working papers and prior drafts) on websites where it could be easily discovered by potential reviewers." [1] Apparently, they consider double-blind review a more sacred ideal than early dissemination of research through working papers. * The research critically involves a multimedia artifact, such as a video, that cannot be easily be submitted as supporting materials for peer review. The video is better posted on a website. Here's a case of requested "gymnastics" I've seen in order to protect double-blind peer review even in such cases: "We ask each author to create his/her own account with an open access provider of choice (e.g., linked video could be hosted in Vimeo or YouTube). Please use a pseudo user name in order to maintain anonymity during the review process." [2] Although I do believe in the benefits of double-blind review (I'll send a separate post with a few citations), in my own research I am increasingly confronted with the fact that new approaches to research that favour openness and mass collaboration are fundamentally in conflict with the idea of anonymity in the identity of the authors of a manuscript submitted for peer review. Personally, I prefer to forge ahead with innovative modes of research conduct, even if double-blind review is sacrificed. For me, a perfect compromise is to default to double-blind, but fall back to single-blind when the nature of the research project calls for it. ~ Chitu [1] http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jibs/author_instructions.html#Ethical-guidelines [2] http://icis2011.aisnet.org/Paper_Submission.html#B Dariusz Jemielniak a crit: just out of curiosity, what could be the reasonable expected purposes for requesting a single-blind review instead of a standard double-blind in your model? best, dj On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:56 AM, Chitu Okoli chitu.ok...@concordia.ca wrote: Actually, I think it is more reasonable to use double-blind by default unless authors request single-blind. If single-blind were the default, it would be difficult to request double-blind as exceptions: * If there is a "big name" researcher who wants to take advantage of his/her reputation, he/she would not request double-blind. * If there is a "big name" researcher who is modest and does not think highly of himself/herself, he/she would not request double-blind. * If there is a minority or woman researcher afraid of discrimination, if he/she requested double-blind, the reviewers would reasonably guess that the author(s) are minorities or women. Thus, I think double-blind as a default for everyone with single-blind as special exception would be the more practical and fairer general policy. With the increase of preprints and working papers (e.g. arXiv and SSRN), I think author anonymity is becoming increasingly impractical. In any case, these comments mainly apply to social science journals; I still think that single-blind makes more sense for computer science journals. ~ Chitu Kerry Raymond a crit: I would note that the use of 1) would render double-blind irrelevant in 2). We would all know ... On 06/11/2012, at 6:05 AM, "Kerry
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Double-blind vs. single-blind review
Here are some references about the pros and cons of double-blind peer review: * Book: Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths Weaknesses by Ann C. Weller [1]. This book covers not only double-blind peer review, but empirical studies about all kinds of peer review (including open peer review, where even the reviewers are not anonymous). This book, and papers it summarizes, is my primary source of information on this topic. If your library doesn't have it, you could ask them to get it (that's how I got a hold of it for myself). * Nature magazine report on an international survey about peer review [2]. Highlights pertinent to this discussion: - "Support [for double-blind peer review] is highest with those who have experienced it (the humanities and social sciences) or *where it is perceived to do the most good (among female authors)*. The least enthusiastic group is editors." - "The one bright light in favour of double-blind peer review is the measured reduction in bias against authors with female first names (shown in numerous studies, such as ref. 4). This suggests that authors submitting papers to traditionally minded journals should include the given names of authors only on the final, published version." - "The double-blind approach is predicated on a culture in which manuscripts-in-progress are kept secret. This is true for the most part in the life sciences. But some physical sciences, such as high-energy physics, share preprints extensively through arXiv, an online repository. *Thus, double-blind peer review is at odds with another 'force for good' in the academic world: the open sharing of information.* The PRC survey found that highly competitive fields (such as neuroscience) or those with larger commercial or applied interests (such as materials science and chemical engineering) were the most enthusiastic about double-blinding, whereas fields with more of a tradition for openness (astronomy and mathematics) were decidedly less supportive." * Two open discussions on Nature magazine blogs about double-blind peer review from 2005 [3] and 2008 [4]. The 2008 discussion was in response to the editorial mentioned above. ~ Chitu [1] http://www.amazon.ca/Editorial-Peer-Review-Strengths-Weaknesses/dp/1573871001 [2] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7179/full/451605b.html [3] http://blogs.nature.com/actionpotential/2005/12/doubleblind_peer_review.html [4] http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2008/02/working_doubleblind.html Manuel Palomo Duarte a crit: The woman discrimination is something the journal should care about. Any idea on how to face it? ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Double-blind vs. single-blind review
well, then I think I basically disagree on this one. I think that the fact that the authors CAN be identified after doing some more or less advanced research, does not mean that the reviewers are going to actively seek to break their anonymity (in fact, I'd assume this would be discouraged by most journal policies, and there are many traditional research projects where identifying the authors after some investigation is possible). Double-blind review is a process which is sustained and secured by good-faith participants (both the authors and the reviewers, too). Even if the authors can be guessed with some probability just from the references list, it does not mean that eliminating all elements of doubt serves a good purpose. I, for that matter, would rather avoid checking SSRN/Academia/wiki for the authors' names, to protect the rules of the game, and I would report that i may know the authors if I had known about their project from before hand. best, dj On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Chitu Okoli chitu.ok...@concordia.cawrote: Here are a few scenarios: * The research topic concerns a public website. The website identifies the authors. The paper makes no sense without explicitly identifying the website. Thus, authors should be able to request single-blind review. Note that this scenario very much applies to this entire discussion of a new research journal that uses wiki-based research development. I don't know if you caught Kerry Raymond's comment on this thread (I copy it below), which explains this point very succinctly. * Authors have posted a working paper which has been on the web for a long time, and is known to most researchers in that field of interest (i.e. most potential and qualified reviewers for the peer-reviewed version). In this case, I would think that reviewers should not be excluded for no reason other than they know the authors' identity. One of the most backward policies I've ever seen related to this is JIBS's policy to protect double-blind review: Authors should also not post their submitted manuscript (including working papers and prior drafts) on websites where it could be easily discovered by potential reviewers. [1] Apparently, they consider double-blind review a more sacred ideal than early dissemination of research through working papers. * The research critically involves a multimedia artifact, such as a video, that cannot be easily be submitted as supporting materials for peer review. The video is better posted on a website. Here's a case of requested gymnastics I've seen in order to protect double-blind peer review even in such cases: We ask each author to create his/her own account with an open access provider of choice (e.g., linked video could be hosted in Vimeo or YouTube). Please use a pseudo user name in order to maintain anonymity during the review process. [2] Although I do believe in the benefits of double-blind review (I'll send a separate post with a few citations), in my own research I am increasingly confronted with the fact that new approaches to research that favour openness and mass collaboration are fundamentally in conflict with the idea of anonymity in the identity of the authors of a manuscript submitted for peer review. Personally, I prefer to forge ahead with innovative modes of research conduct, even if double-blind review is sacrificed. For me, a perfect compromise is to default to double-blind, but fall back to single-blind when the nature of the research project calls for it. ~ Chitu [1] http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jibs/author_instructions.html#Ethical-guidelines [2] http://icis2011.aisnet.org/Paper_Submission.html#B Dariusz Jemielniak a écrit : just out of curiosity, what could be the reasonable expected purposes for requesting a single-blind review instead of a standard double-blind in your model? best, dj On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:56 AM, Chitu Okoli chitu.ok...@concordia.cawrote: Actually, I think it is more reasonable to use double-blind by default unless authors request single-blind. If single-blind were the default, it would be difficult to request double-blind as exceptions: * If there is a big name researcher who wants to take advantage of his/her reputation, he/she would not request double-blind. * If there is a big name researcher who is modest and does not think highly of himself/herself, he/she would not request double-blind. * If there is a minority or woman researcher afraid of discrimination, if he/she requested double-blind, the reviewers would reasonably guess that the author(s) are minorities or women. Thus, I think double-blind as a default for everyone with single-blind as special exception would be the more practical and fairer general policy. With the increase of preprints and working papers (e.g. arXiv and SSRN), I think author anonymity is becoming increasingly impractical. In any case, these comments mainly apply to social science
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Double-blind vs. single-blind review
I cannot speak for other disciplines but double-blind is not standard in Computer Science. Kerry ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Double-blind vs. single-blind review
Actually, I think it is more reasonable to use double-blind by default unless authors request single-blind. If single-blind were the default, it would be difficult to request double-blind as exceptions: * If there is a "big name" researcher who wants to take advantage of his/her reputation, he/she would not request double-blind. * If there is a "big name" researcher who is modest and does not think highly of himself/herself, he/she would not request double-blind. * If there is a minority or woman researcher afraid of discrimination, if he/she requested double-blind, the reviewers would reasonably guess that the author(s) are minorities or women. Thus, I think double-blind as a default for everyone with single-blind as special exception would be the more practical and fairer general policy. With the increase of preprints and working papers (e.g. arXiv and SSRN), I think author anonymity is becoming increasingly impractical. In any case, these comments mainly apply to social science journals; I still think that single-blind makes more sense for computer science journals. ~ Chitu Kerry Raymond a écrit : I think a compromise position is to use single-blind unless the authors request double-blind and are therefore prepared to undertake the "ridiculous gymnastics" required. Certainly (in computer science) I would agree that it is very hard for any established researcher publishing in their normal field to successfully disguise their identify. Sent from my iPad On 05/11/2012, at 8:30 AM, "Chitu Okoli" chitu.ok...@concordia.ca wrote: Although in theory double-blind review is superior to single-blind, in practice double-blind vs. single-blind review has very little to do with journal quality. It is much more a matter of disciplinary culture. (Single-blind: authors don't know who the reviewers are, but reviewers do know who authors are; Double-blind: neither authors nor reviewers know who each other are) Yes, I am certainly aware of studies that show that double-blind reviewing does indeed reduce the bias towards publishing famous researchers and reduces the bias against publishing work by minority researchers and women. So, I believe that double-blind reviewing is indeed meaningful. However, my general observation is that the decision for a journal to be double-blind or single-blind is mainly a matter of disciplinary tradition. To make a very gross generalization, social science journals are generally double-blind, whereas natural science and mathematical science journals are generally single-blind. This observation is very relevant to this discussion, because the wiki-research-l community sits in between this divide. My perception is that 90% of people who post on this list are in information systems (double-blind), computer science (single-blind) or information science (either double- or single-blind). If we can accept that single-blind journals can be considered as high-quality as well, then I feel a journal with wikified peer review would do much better being single-blind, especially if its subject matter is wiki-related topics. I understand that one of the primary reasons many journals decide against going double-blind is because of the ridiculous gymnastics that have to be undertaken in many cases to try to hide authors' identity. In computer science, where many researchers make their programs available on the Web, and much of their research concerns particular websites that they have developed, double-blinding would often be impossible if attempted--reviewers couldn't properly evaluate the work without knowing who created it. I think this is very much the case for a wiki-based peer review system for much wiki-related research. Of course, the official reviewers should remain anonymous. (I know that open peer review has often been proposed--authors and reviewers know each others' identities--and has even been experimented with on several occasions, but it does not seem to be a quality improvement--I can post citations if anyone is interested.) It is much easier to hide the identity of the official reviewers than it is to hide that of the authors, and the benefits of single-blinding are substantial and proven. ~ Chitu ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Double-blind vs. single-blind review
Although in theory double-blind review is superior to single-blind, in practice double-blind vs. single-blind review has very little to do with journal quality. It is much more a matter of disciplinary culture. (Single-blind: authors don't know who the reviewers are, but reviewers do know who authors are; Double-blind: neither authors nor reviewers know who each other are) Yes, I am certainly aware of studies that show that double-blind reviewing does indeed reduce the bias towards publishing famous researchers and reduces the bias against publishing work by minority researchers and women. So, I believe that double-blind reviewing is indeed meaningful. However, my general observation is that the decision for a journal to be double-blind or single-blind is mainly a matter of disciplinary tradition. To make a very gross generalization, social science journals are generally double-blind, whereas natural science and mathematical science journals are generally single-blind. This observation is very relevant to this discussion, because the wiki-research-l community sits in between this divide. My perception is that 90% of people who post on this list are in information systems (double-blind), computer science (single-blind) or information science (either double- or single-blind). If we can accept that single-blind journals can be considered as high-quality as well, then I feel a journal with wikified peer review would do much better being single-blind, especially if its subject matter is wiki-related topics. I understand that one of the primary reasons many journals decide against going double-blind is because of the ridiculous gymnastics that have to be undertaken in many cases to try to hide authors' identity. In computer science, where many researchers make their programs available on the Web, and much of their research concerns particular websites that they have developed, double-blinding would often be impossible if attempted--reviewers couldn't properly evaluate the work without knowing who created it. I think this is very much the case for a wiki-based peer review system for much wiki-related research. Of course, the official reviewers should remain anonymous. (I know that open peer review has often been proposed--authors and reviewers know each others' identities--and has even been experimented with on several occasions, but it does not seem to be a quality improvement--I can post citations if anyone is interested.) It is much easier to hide the identity of the official reviewers than it is to hide that of the authors, and the benefits of single-blinding are substantial and proven. ~ Chitu Dariusz Jemielniak a crit: actually, with our community, it is not. What other journals die for, we have sort of provided. This is why a Wiki journal may have a better chance than others, but only if it is prepared with the academic career paths and full proper code of conduct nuances considered (double-blind scholarly peer review, proper editorial board, PDFs with page numbers, etc.). dj ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Double-blind vs. single-blind review
I think a compromise position is to use single-blind unless the authors request double-blind and are therefore prepared to undertake the ridiculous gymnastics required. Certainly (in computer science) I would agree that it is very hard for any established researcher publishing in their normal field to successfully disguise their identify. Sent from my iPad On 05/11/2012, at 8:30 AM, Chitu Okoli chitu.ok...@concordia.ca wrote: Although in theory double-blind review is superior to single-blind, in practice double-blind vs. single-blind review has very little to do with journal quality. It is much more a matter of disciplinary culture. (Single-blind: authors don't know who the reviewers are, but reviewers do know who authors are; Double-blind: neither authors nor reviewers know who each other are) Yes, I am certainly aware of studies that show that double-blind reviewing does indeed reduce the bias towards publishing famous researchers and reduces the bias against publishing work by minority researchers and women. So, I believe that double-blind reviewing is indeed meaningful. However, my general observation is that the decision for a journal to be double-blind or single-blind is mainly a matter of disciplinary tradition. To make a very gross generalization, social science journals are generally double-blind, whereas natural science and mathematical science journals are generally single-blind. This observation is very relevant to this discussion, because the wiki-research-l community sits in between this divide. My perception is that 90% of people who post on this list are in information systems (double-blind), computer science (single-blind) or information science (either double- or single-blind). If we can accept that single-blind journals can be considered as high-quality as well, then I feel a journal with wikified peer review would do much better being single-blind, especially if its subject matter is wiki-related topics. I understand that one of the primary reasons many journals decide against going double-blind is because of the ridiculous gymnastics that have to be undertaken in many cases to try to hide authors' identity. In computer science, where many researchers make their programs available on the Web, and much of their research concerns particular websites that they have developed, double-blinding would often be impossible if attempted--reviewers couldn't properly evaluate the work without knowing who created it. I think this is very much the case for a wiki-based peer review system for much wiki-related research. Of course, the official reviewers should remain anonymous. (I know that open peer review has often been proposed--authors and reviewers know each others' identities--and has even been experimented with on several occasions, but it does not seem to be a quality improvement--I can post citations if anyone is interested.) It is much easier to hide the identity of the official reviewers than it is to hide that of the authors, and the benefits of single-blinding are substantial and proven. ~ Chitu Dariusz Jemielniak a écrit : actually, with our community, it is not. What other journals die for, we have sort of provided. This is why a Wiki journal may have a better chance than others, but only if it is prepared with the academic career paths and full proper code of conduct nuances considered (double-blind scholarly peer review, proper editorial board, PDFs with page numbers, etc.). dj ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
