11–20 of 319 posts
Is it any different to podcasts, concerts, and books? People will choose what they listen, see, or read heavily based on who the performer is. A performer who has consistently given good content will obviously have a bigger pull than a nobody still trying to get their first break.
Podcasts, concerts and books are something we review subjectively. Scientific articles one would expect would be reviewed objectively.
How is double blind not the norm? there is just too much room for bias
Is it any different to podcasts, concerts, and books? People will choose what they listen, see, or read heavily based on who the performer is. A performer who has consistently given good content will obviously have a bigger pull than a nobody still trying to get their first break.
Podcasts, concerts and books are something we review subjectively. Scientific articles one would expect would be reviewed objectively.
How is double blind not the norm? there is just too much room for bias
If you want a review to be truly double blind, you have to start censoring the paper -- things like "in previous work [1-10] we showed..." makes it obvious who the authors are even if you remove the names from the top of the paper.
It seems to me that some subjects are so specialized that the group that makes up one's 'peers' is fairly small. How do they have real anonymized reviews when it becomes easy to recognize the writings of the author? The more papers that someone writes, the easier it would be for their peers to recognize the writing style and other quirks that would give the author away.
Sometimes it seems very obvious that a given paper is by specific authors (either because of style, or because of how familiar it is with their previous work) but I've had many experiences where I later learned that my supposition was completely wrong. Similarly, when you encounter a paper that doesn't have any obvious cues (which is the overwhelming majority of them) then it's pretty much impossible to tell whether it's an author you admire or someone you've never heard of -- and this is a good thing.
Some conferences don't use blind submissions, and yes: I have felt an awful lot of influence there. "Surely [famous Turing-award winning authors] don't need me to double-check their proof."
"A Nobel prizewinner is six times more likely than someone less well known to get a thumbs-up for acceptance, finds study." Lifehack discovered: legally change your name to that of a Nobel prizewinner if pursuing academia.
Old news from 2016 Jobseekers with Anglo-Saxon, easy to pronounce and common names are the most likely to get to the interview stage compared to candidates with unfamiliar names, according to research by the Australian National University published in the Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/unusual-nam...
Is it any different to podcasts, concerts, and books? People will choose what they listen, see, or read heavily based on who the performer is. A performer who has consistently given good content will obviously have a bigger pull than a nobody still trying to get their first break.
Podcasts, concerts and books are something we review subjectively. Scientific articles one would expect would be reviewed objectively.
"A Nobel prizewinner is six times more likely than someone less well known to get a thumbs-up for acceptance, finds study." Lifehack discovered: legally change your name to that of a Nobel prizewinner if pursuing academia.
Old news from 2016 Jobseekers with Anglo-Saxon, easy to pronounce and common names are the most likely to get to the interview stage compared to candidates with unfamiliar names, according to research by the Australian National University published in the Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/unusual-nam...