Episode: 93: Double-blind peer review vs. open science
Pub date: 2019-10-07
Dan and James answer a listener question on how to navigate open science practices, such as preprints and open code repositories, in light of double-blind reviews.
Stuff they cover:
- How common is double-blind review?
- How many journals don’t accept preprints?
- Bias in the review process
- How practical is blinded review?
- Do the benefits of preprints outweighs not having blinded review?
- James’ approach to getting comments on his preprints
- Convincing your supervisor to adopt open science practices
- The preprint that James won’t submit for publication, for some reason
- We get reviews…
- Our first live guest!
- [Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
- [James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
- [Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
- [Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)
Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)
Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!
- $1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you’re supporting the show
- $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn’t include in our regular episodes)
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, October 7) “Double-blind peer review vs. Open Science”, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7ZPME
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Dan Quintana, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.