Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Double-blind vs.single-blind review

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

thanks Chitu, although it is totally not my field, it looks really
interesting!

(downloaded from:
http://ftp.cs.arizona.edu/~rts/pubs/SIGMODRecordSept06.pdf


On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Chitu Okoli wrote:

>  I know this is an old branch of this topic, but since it generated quite
> some interest on this list, I thought I'd share this excellent article I
> recently found on double-blind vs. single-blind reviewing. It addresses
> most of the issues that were discussed in this sub-thread.
>
> In brief, the editor of a prominent computer science journal recounts his
> exploration on which way to go with his journal. The journal decided to go
> double-blind because of its benefits (mainly protecting less powerful
> researchers), but his journal has a very detailed set of instructions (in
> the appendix) that do an excellent job addressing computer science projects
> that are difficult to anonymize, which I think are very much applicable to
> a wiki-based journal as discussed in this thread.
>
>  Snodgrass, Richard T. 2007. Editorial: Single- versus double-blind
> reviewing. *ACM Trans. Database Syst.* 32, 1.
> 
>
> If you don't have access to the ACM Digital Library, you can get a PDF of
> the article from Google Scholar.
>
> ~ 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
___
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

[Chitu Okoli]

  
  
I know this is an old branch of this topic, but since it generated
quite some interest on this list, I thought I'd share this excellent
article I recently found on double-blind vs. single-blind reviewing.
It addresses most of the issues that were discussed in this
sub-thread.

In brief, the editor of a prominent computer science journal
recounts his exploration on which way to go with his journal. The
journal decided to go double-blind because of its benefits (mainly
protecting less powerful researchers), but his journal has a very
detailed set of instructions (in the appendix) that do an excellent
job addressing computer science projects that are difficult to
anonymize, which I think are very much applicable to a wiki-based
journal as discussed in this thread.


  Snodgrass, Richard T. 2007. Editorial:
Single- versus double-blind reviewing. ACM Trans. Database
  Syst. 32, 1.

  

If you don't have access to the ACM Digital Library, you can get a
PDF of the article from Google Scholar.

~ 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

[Kerry Raymond]

I guess the scenario you want to protect against is this.

Reviewer is Junior Researcher, the author is a Head of School. Next year
Junior Researcher applies for job at that school and doesn't get it or
applies for a grant or 

Kerry


-Original Message-
From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
koltzenb...@w4w.net
Sent: Thursday, 8 November 2012 7:41 PM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
Subject: 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 
> 
> > 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 
> > >
> > > > 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 
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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

> > > > 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 P