The discussion centers on the implications of implementing double-blind peer review in scientific publishing, particularly in fields like physics. Participants reference a study from PNAS indicating that well-known authors from prestigious institutions are more likely to have their papers accepted under single-blind review. The consensus is that double-blind review may not be feasible due to the small size of certain research communities, where identifying authors through references and experimental details is often straightforward. Reviewers express concerns that anonymity could hinder the efficiency of the review process, as familiarity with authors can inform the trustworthiness of the submitted work.
PREREQUISITESResearchers, academic editors, and anyone involved in the peer review process who seeks to understand the dynamics of author anonymity and its effects on scientific publishing.
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