3 ms·

Ask yourself why juries and prosecutors and judges and police are not anonymous but voting is. > What is your perspective, why would you not like it? Authors

Ask yourself why juries and prosecutors and judges and police are not anonymous but voting is. > What is your perspective, why would you not like it? Authors should be hidden from reviewers. Reviewers should be made known to authors. Why? When some reviewer dings me because he/she doesn't understand a fundamental concept, or some technical detail, or because I didn't cite their work, I should be able to have some/any recourse. Right now these people are completely shielded by anonymity.

kergonath 2y ago
> Ask yourself why juries and prosecutors and judges and police are not anonymous but voting is. Jurors are anonymous when it’s needed, for the same reasons voting is secret: to avoid coercion, blackmail, and retribution. We should want to keep reviewers anonymous for the same reasons. Prosecutors and judges are not, of course. And I don’t need to ask myself, all of this is obvious. > Authors should be hidden from reviewers. So we…half agree? As I said, think it would be much healthier to have double blind reviews, because what’s being reviewed is the work and not the authors. > Why? When some reviewer dings me because he/she doesn't understand a fundamental concept, or some technical detail, or because I didn't cite their work, I should be able to have some/any recourse. Right now these people are completely shielded by anonymity. And for good reasons. When I reviewed a paper from a big lab as a post-doc, it would have been impossible to do it properly if I had to fear the professor’s retaliation. Anonymity is a shield to avoid direct confrontation. Rogue or stubborn reviewers are why we need more than one of them and editor discretion. The editors are not stupid, they know these patterns.
- almostgotcaught 2y ago
  It's pointless debating people that benefit from the current system. All I'll say I'm glad I graduated and went into industry so I never have to deal another review again.

kergonath 2y ago

> Ask yourself why juries and prosecutors and judges and police are not anonymous but voting is. Jurors are anonymous when it’s needed, for the same reasons voting is secret: to avoid coercion, blackmail, and retribution. We should want to keep reviewers anonymous for the same reasons. Prosecutors and judges are not, of course. And I don’t need to ask myself, all of this is obvious. > Authors should be hidden from reviewers. So we…half agree? As I said, think it would be much healthier to have double blind reviews, because what’s being reviewed is the work and not the authors. > Why? When some reviewer dings me because he/she doesn't understand a fundamental concept, or some technical detail, or because I didn't cite their work, I should be able to have some/any recourse. Right now these people are completely shielded by anonymity. And for good reasons. When I reviewed a paper from a big lab as a post-doc, it would have been impossible to do it properly if I had to fear the professor’s retaliation. Anonymity is a shield to avoid direct confrontation. Rogue or stubborn reviewers are why we need more than one of them and editor discretion. The editors are not stupid, they know these patterns.

almostgotcaught 2y ago
It's pointless debating people that benefit from the current system. All I'll say I'm glad I graduated and went into industry so I never have to deal another review again.