The discussion revolves around the implications of adopting a double-blind peer review process in scientific publishing. Participants explore potential winners and losers in the academic community, particularly in relation to authorship visibility and its impact on paper acceptance rates. The conversation touches on challenges in implementing such a system, especially in fields where author identification may be straightforward due to limited research groups or specific experimental methods.
Participants express a range of views on the practicality and fairness of double-blind peer review, with no clear consensus on its implementation or effectiveness. There is agreement on the challenges posed by identifying authors through references and context, but opinions diverge on whether this undermines the potential benefits of anonymity.
Limitations include the reliance on previous work for context in many papers, which may compromise the anonymity intended by double-blind review. Additionally, the discussion highlights the varying dynamics of different fields, suggesting that the feasibility of double-blind review may differ significantly across disciplines.
Dale said:
Well, all of the standard journals in my sub-field use it.atyy said:
Dale said:
So if ##ER\ne 0## then ##P=1##?! :-Datyy said:You would lose too, since you wouldn't be able to write a paper about ER=EPR