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 (SPI&FM). 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
