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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
