21–30 of 319 posts
As in this person has more than proved himself, let’s not vet him as much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You do not have to censor: you simply refer to yourselves in the third person to make your shared identity plausibly deniable. A work that is worthy of being of publication should largely be able to stand on its own anyway. This may have the effect of reducing minimum publishable unit (MPU) CV spam papers as a bonus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do not have to censor: you simply refer to yourselves in the third person to make your shared identity plausibly deniable. A work that is worthy of being of publication should largely be able to stand on its own anyway. This may have the effect of reducing minimum publishable unit (MPU) CV spam papers as a bonus.
I'm talking about editors censoring papers. Authors could avoid this problem by writing differently, but as a reader I'd prefer they don't; knowing that a body of work is closely related is very useful, especially when it comes to deciding which references to follow up.
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.
I'm not sure how to fix this problem though. In our phage newsletter we try to avoid using names and universities to focus on the paper/topic/finding itself, but I keep finding myself looking at author names and affiliations before diving into any paper.
I know it's "wrong" and I recognize myself doing it, but I still do it all the time.
This reminds me of a bias I saw on Quora, where some popular contributor gets tons of upvotes by fans regardless of whether their answer is any good or not (often you have to dig deep into the comments to find out that it's not a good answer). (I should qualify that I don't know if it's still that way; I started using it when it was first launched and then quit 6-7 years ago once it started turning into a fanboi and…
That’s what we want in society right? Perks for doing hard work and then being recognized for it. That’s what “street cred” is. Maintaining a reputation is hard work and the fast pass and acknowledgment from the broader society is your reward. As in this person has more than proved himself, let’s not vet him as much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You do not have to censor: you simply refer to yourselves in the third person to make your shared identity plausibly deniable. A work that is worthy of being of publication should largely be able to stand on its own anyway. This may have the effect of reducing minimum publishable unit (MPU) CV spam papers as a bonus.
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.