You probably agree that the peer review system is broken. Several ideas have been proposed to fix the system. Some journals tried double blind peer reviewing and others experimented with open peer review.
However, I think these proposals are like putting a Bandaid over a cancerous wound because they don’t really address the root cause of the problem.
Scientists often pride themselves as a highly objective contingent. Yet, research on single blind peer reviews show women and researchers from low and middle income countries are often viewed unfavorably. Thus, double blind reviews might help, a little.
But double blind peer review has its problems. Sometimes, a reviewer needs to look at the previous work by an author, especially when understanding the context of the research is important. Open peer review might help by taking transparency to the limit.
But there’s a problem with open peer review. If scientists can succumb…
View original post 386 more words