= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Yasser_Elassal comments on Does blind review slow down science? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (21)
First I should state that I disagree with anonymous review for the same reasons that I disagree with an unaccountable judiciary - the negative effects on responsibility.
However, there are several problems with the theory in this essay - the most important being that the editors know who the writer or researcher is and can decide to go ahead and publish on that score no matter what the reviewers say. The editors have a strong incentive to advance novel but true theories in that it will advance the reputation of the journal.
I don't understand your objection to anonymous review on the basis of accountability. Doesn't "anonymous review" in this context just mean that the reviewers don't know the authors and affiliations of the papers they're reviewing? In that case, what is there to be accountable for? The reviewers themselves aren't any more anonymous in "anonymous review" than in standard review, are they?
In this context, yes, that's the only thing it means.
Maybe I was wrong about that, but I also understood it to mean that the reviewer was also unknown to the author, even after the review. I have heard several stories (can't remember the sources; possibly only urban-scientific legends) of reviewers giving poor reviews of work that could have pre-empted things they were currently working on. And similar self-serving tactics.