Double-anonymized peer review is not the progressive answer to status bias

Horbach et al.:

“Opting for double-anonymized peer review has far-reaching implications. It hinders the adoption of important open science practices, including fast dissemination through preprint servers, early sharing of protocols and data sets, and transparency about competing interests. As such, double-anonymized peer review impedes innovation in scholarly publishing. Crucial innovative developments such as preprinting, preprint peer review (2), the publish-review-curate model (3,4), and micro-publications (5) are all incompatible with double-anonymized peer review.”

Autor: Klaus Graf

Historiker und Archivar, Blogger

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht.

Diese Website verwendet Akismet, um Spam zu reduzieren. Erfahre mehr darüber, wie deine Kommentardaten verarbeitet werden.

Suche in OpenEdition Search

Sie werden weitergeleitet zur OpenEdition Search