Published: Jan. 21, 2019, 7 a.m.
Peer review is typically conducted behind closed doors. There's been a recent push to make open peer review standard, but what's often left out of these conversations are the potential downsides. To illustrate this, Dan and James discuss a recent instance of open peer review that led to considerable online debate.
\n\n
Here's what they cover...
\n\n
\n- How should we navigate the open review of preprints?
\n- Gate keepers gonna gate keep, but is this better out in the open?
\n- Weaponising openness
\n- Some people don't realise that some data can\u2019t be shared
\n- Should the reviewers of rejected papers follow them to the next journal?
\n- When bad papers that you reject pop up in another journal, unchanged
\n- Does the venue and timing of the open peer review matter?
\n- Signing your reviews
\n- Using publons to track your reviews
\n
\n\n
Links
\n\n
\n\n
Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/
\n\n
\n\n
Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!
\n\n
\n- $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
\n- $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)
\n
Support Everything Hertz