Should the peer review process be open? I think so, and the result of this study support my view. "Substantiating our statements, and being accountable for what we say and how we say it when we are gatekeepers for publication, is decisive for me. That's all the more important for people whose work or critique loses out because of status bias, and those who may be repelled from publishing and science by reviewer aggressiveness." Would I be linking to this post if it didn't support my views? Maybe not here. But I'd want it published. I would want to know about the relevant data (presumably there would have been some) arguing against my views. And one think I like about listing resources in this newsletter is that I am accountable for what I say about them - something one of the anonymous peer reviewers can say.
Today: 1 Total: 5 [Direct link] [Share]
View full size
