I am so sorry for the late recap this week, but it was my birthday (yay!) and life got in the way. But here we are. Last week we discussed: Would double-blind or open peer review help with diversity?
We came with some short questions to make our discussion flow easier, but I was not as good as Ian to moderate them in order this time!
So the issue is really complicated because it’s field-specific.Per review process dependent on how large and complex the field of study is. People from your field know your research and would be able to guess who the authors are. But they never really know, so, is it still helpful? So probably there is no answer that would fit all journals. But everybody agreed that it is pretty unfair for one side to know the other and not vice-versa. Single-blinded review protects the reviewers, but also hides them.
In an ideal world everyone should be able to speak up freely, be honest, and make meaningful critiques. But that also involves personalities. Some people may be able (or even more capable of) doing critiques when both parties are know to each other. Also, people would probably be more throughout with the revisions if they were all open. But what if you are a PD, in search for a job? Would you stand-up and critique the pope of your field? There may be some negative impact on reviewers; especially early career women and POC. And retaliation can come in other ways– if I reject your Science paper, will you block my grant? Maybe reviewers should identify themselves post-tenure. Won’t solve vendetta issue, but could protects early career professors.
We didn’t come up with an answer to the question, because probably there is not a single answer than would solve all our Diversity issues on peer-reviewing. But it was a nice discussion! Thanks to all that participated and hope to see you all next Monday (10/05/2015, 2pm EST).