Very true, I was just thinking how great of a concept the double-blind peer review system for Fire Tech. is. Would have saved me some trouble a few months ago in a different situation...
Great Quote. Double-blind peer review certainly would clear up some problems encountered in the past and would be much fairer to both sides. Still, I suppose you can never move beyond some personal prejudices... I cringe when I read "...this work is not worth pursuing," and would much rather read an unbiased assessment of the scientific quality of the work.
But I still look forward some journals in fire/combustion that add options for:
1) Identified reviewers - no blindness. This option would be of interest to research that has been rejected in the past due to possible personal biased of a reviewer. For example, this is an important option in disciplines where innovative work is rarely sent for publication (~conservative disciplines). The editor would have the not easy task of finding reviewers who do not mind showing their names.
2) Add the reviews and replies from authors to the final published version of the paper. This would inform the readers about the detailed discussed during the review process and the full strength of the comments from both sides. Of course the reviewers must agree to this prior to the review itself.
There are journals in other (larger) disciplines already allowing for these options. One day it will reach us too.
Very true, I was just thinking how great of a concept the double-blind peer review system for Fire Tech. is. Would have saved me some trouble a few months ago in a different situation...
ReplyDeleteThat's true ,isn't mr.Rein
ReplyDeleteI don't think so,cause when the mask falls, truth appear.
ReplyDeleteGreat Quote. Double-blind peer review certainly would clear up some problems encountered in the past and would be much fairer to both sides. Still, I suppose you can never move beyond some personal prejudices... I cringe when I read "...this work is not worth pursuing," and would much rather read an unbiased assessment of the scientific quality of the work.
ReplyDeleteBut I still look forward some journals in fire/combustion that add options for:
ReplyDelete1) Identified reviewers - no blindness. This option would be of interest to research that has been rejected in the past due to possible personal biased of a reviewer. For example, this is an important option in disciplines where innovative work is rarely sent for publication (~conservative disciplines). The editor would have the not easy task of finding reviewers who do not mind showing their names.
2) Add the reviews and replies from authors to the final published version of the paper. This would inform the readers about the detailed discussed during the review process and the full strength of the comments from both sides. Of course the reviewers must agree to this prior to the review itself.
There are journals in other (larger) disciplines already allowing for these options. One day it will reach us too.