These perverse incentives (publish or perish; using big words to appear more serious) are far bigger problems than peer review being single-blind or not. Yeste

These perverse incentives (publish or perish; using big words to appear more serious) are far bigger problems than peer review being single-blind or not. Yesterday I started looking for a token embedding method, and my search turned up word2vec and GLoVe. After skimming both papers I am leaning toward word2vec solely because it was easier for me to understand the big idea, even though GLoVe may perform better. Personally I would rather see code than a LaTeX-typeset equation. With typeset equations, the author has plausible deniability that you didn't interpret their notation just right, or oops that was supposed to be a boldface capital X, which implies a different data type. But if you provide code, anyone can run it and independently verify the results. Maybe the fact that no one can independently verify your equations/pseudocode is a feature, not a bug.