3 ms·
Sure- you can absolutely figure out who wrote the paper given enough work. Yet, I really do like the idea of first the paper being reviewed on it's own merit/id
by tibbon 11y ago
Sure- you can absolutely figure out who wrote the paper given enough work. Yet, I really do like the idea of first the paper being reviewed on it's own merit/ideas/findings, and then potentially people seeing who was involved as a secondary thing at some later point after judgements had already been made.
- Fomite 11y agoI really like double-blind peer review. This was more a note that, when the paper is accepted, those identifying things go back in. The proposal to have papers be anonymous would have to leave them back out, stripping the paper of important context, and making open science a bigger pain than it already is. Which is kinda contrary to the goal.
- scott_s 11y agoI have submitted several papers for double-blind peer review. (I work in the systems side of computer science.) My rule is that I will not weaken a paper through the double-blind process - that is, even if saying this paper builds on prior work may give enough information to out me or my co-authors, I still do it. I still say what system we used, and say it builds on previous work, but I pretend that that work was done by someone else. In practice, someone who really wants to break the double-blind veil probably can. But I don't think that's a problem, as very few people are consciously biased, and will actively seek out such identifying information. By removing names and affiliations, and pretending all of our work was done by someone else, I think that's enough to help people avoid unconscious bias.