Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

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

Horbach et al.: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/fqb5c

“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.”


OpenEdition schlägt Ihnen vor, diesen Beitrag wie folgt zu zitieren:
Klaus Graf (3. November 2022). Double-anonymized peer review is not the progressive answer to status bias. Archivalia. Abgerufen am 18. Juni 2025 von https://doi.org/10.58079/cgvk


Autor: Klaus Graf

Historiker und Archivar, Blogger

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.