4 ms·
Not even in "small" fields. A lot of the time any new work is just a further development of previous work by the same author. So if you're well read in your fie
by m0zg 6y ago
Not even in "small" fields. A lot of the time any new work is just a further development of previous work by the same author. So if you're well read in your field, that "double blind" peer review is not blind at all.
- hoistbypetard 6y agoThe cure to that (reviewers who are not well read in their field) seems far worse than the disease.
- m0zg 6y agoI'm not saying we need a cure. I'm just saying we can all stop pretending that those reviews are "double blind" to the extent currently assumed by many.
- sqrt17 6y agothe cure to that is a field where independent people can also contribute to further development of existing work - through making sure that resources used and code are published along with the paper. Of course, this is hard to do with cell cultures and such, and in the case of large databases or compute-intensive tasks it's not quite feasible. But a surprising amount of what goes on in CS and neighbouring disciplines can work that way once you work past the reticence of individual established authors and set it as a goal for your (sub-)field.