3 ms·

It seems to me that some subjects are so specialized that the group that makes up one's 'peers' is fairly small. How do they have real anonymized reviews when i

It seems to me that some subjects are so specialized that the group that makes up one's 'peers' is fairly small. How do they have real anonymized reviews when it becomes easy to recognize the writings of the author? The more papers that someone writes, the easier it would be for their peers to recognize the writing style and other quirks that would give the author away.

BurningFrog 4y ago
From what I hear, in many fields the "peers" are better thought of as "rivals".
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
matthewdgreen 4y ago
It might happen unconsciously. But in my experience it's not that easy for a reviewer to consciously use writing cues for anything useful. Sometimes it seems very obvious that a given paper is by specific authors (either because of style, or because of how familiar it is with their previous work) but I've had many experiences where I later learned that my supposition was completely wrong. Similarly, when you encounter a paper that doesn't have any obvious cues (which is the overwhelming majority of them) then it's pretty much impossible to tell whether it's an author you admire or someone you've never heard of -- and this is a good thing. Some conferences don't use blind submissions, and yes: I have felt an awful lot of influence there. "Surely [famous Turing-award winning authors] don't need me to double-check their proof."
yawnxyz 4y ago
This happens all the time in the field I'm in (phages, phage therapy) and the same names appear over and over. Peer review are anonymous but you can easily tell who's reviewed your paper or grant. I'm not sure how to fix this problem though. In our phage newsletter we try to avoid using names and universities to focus on the paper/topic/finding itself, but I keep finding myself looking at author names and affiliations before diving into any paper. I know it's "wrong" and I recognize myself doing it, but I still do it all the time.
ajmurmann 4y ago
I have a friend who is somewhat famous in his little research niche. Even when submitting papers for blind review he will do things like deliberately spell some words British and others American to make it harder for peers to figure out who the paper is from. The peer group is indeed small and rivalries happen quickly. Sometimes you know what other labs are doing very similar research and it's a race to publish first.
- insightcheck 4y ago
  > "he will do things like deliberately spell some words British and others American to make it harder for peers to figure out who the paper is from." This is a good initiative, but a catch is that if he's the only person deliberately spelling some words British and others American, the spelling choice becomes a unique identifier. Though, it could work as long as no one within the group knows who is using the varied spelling.
  - sdenton4 4y ago
    This happens often with coauthored papers as well, so not a total giveaway, necessarily.
Blikkentrekker 4y ago
The nice part is that that can be gamed and should be gamed. People should copy the writing style of famous auctor's then to expose the system and keep people honest because then they know there are copycats.

BurningFrog 4y ago

From what I hear, in many fields the "peers" are better thought of as "rivals".

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

matthewdgreen 4y ago

It might happen unconsciously. But in my experience it's not that easy for a reviewer to consciously use writing cues for anything useful. Sometimes it seems very obvious that a given paper is by specific authors (either because of style, or because of how familiar it is with their previous work) but I've had many experiences where I later learned that my supposition was completely wrong. Similarly, when you encounter a paper that doesn't have any obvious cues (which is the overwhelming majority of them) then it's pretty much impossible to tell whether it's an author you admire or someone you've never heard of -- and this is a good thing. Some conferences don't use blind submissions, and yes: I have felt an awful lot of influence there. "Surely [famous Turing-award winning authors] don't need me to double-check their proof."

yawnxyz 4y ago

This happens all the time in the field I'm in (phages, phage therapy) and the same names appear over and over. Peer review are anonymous but you can easily tell who's reviewed your paper or grant. I'm not sure how to fix this problem though. In our phage newsletter we try to avoid using names and universities to focus on the paper/topic/finding itself, but I keep finding myself looking at author names and affiliations before diving into any paper. I know it's "wrong" and I recognize myself doing it, but I still do it all the time.

ajmurmann 4y ago

I have a friend who is somewhat famous in his little research niche. Even when submitting papers for blind review he will do things like deliberately spell some words British and others American to make it harder for peers to figure out who the paper is from. The peer group is indeed small and rivalries happen quickly. Sometimes you know what other labs are doing very similar research and it's a race to publish first.

insightcheck 4y ago
> "he will do things like deliberately spell some words British and others American to make it harder for peers to figure out who the paper is from." This is a good initiative, but a catch is that if he's the only person deliberately spelling some words British and others American, the spelling choice becomes a unique identifier. Though, it could work as long as no one within the group knows who is using the varied spelling.
- sdenton4 4y ago
  This happens often with coauthored papers as well, so not a total giveaway, necessarily.

Blikkentrekker 4y ago

The nice part is that that can be gamed and should be gamed. People should copy the writing style of famous auctor's then to expose the system and keep people honest because then they know there are copycats.