3 ms·
There is an incentive against doing it. No researcher wants the embarrassment of having an error that they didn't know about discovered. Journals don't fancy th
by csee 5y ago
There is an incentive against doing it. No researcher wants the embarrassment of having an error that they didn't know about discovered. Journals don't fancy the embarrassment or hassle either. It would serve broader scientific progress, but that's not who is deciding to hide the data.
- MaxBarraclough 5y agoA tragedy of the commons, then?
- teekert 5y agoIf you ever find yourself thinking like this, get the f out of science asap, you have no idea what you are doing.
- chestervonwinch 5y agoIt follows from your comment that we should have anonymous authors in addition to anonymous reviewers. Can a researcher establish a provable track record of doing quality work while remaining anonymous?
- ruined 5y agoonly if they are independently wealthy
- csee 5y agoThat would never happen, again because of incentives. Academics want to build their brand and publishing anonymously doesn't help with that.
- chestervonwinch 5y agoPresently, for sure. I was wondering in the hypothetical, too, though. Authors really just need to provably show that they have a strong influence/presence on the publication graph or something. Although, reducing a researcher's entire value to a single scalar index is probably fraught. Also, egos would never go for completely anonymous authorship system, I think.