93: Double-blind peer review vs. open science

Published: Oct. 7, 2019, 2 a.m.

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.

\n\n

Stuff they cover:

\n\n
    \n
  • How common is double-blind review?
  • \n
  • How many journals don\u2019t accept preprints?
  • \n
  • Bias in the review process
  • \n
  • How practical is blinded review?
  • \n
  • Do the benefits of preprints outweighs not having blinded review?
  • \n
  • James' approach to getting comments on his preprints
  • \n
  • Convincing your supervisor to adopt open science practices
  • \n
  • The preprint that James won\u2019t submit for publication, for some reason
  • \n
  • We get reviews...
  • \n
  • Our first live guest!
  • \n
\n\n

Other 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 one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)
  • \n
\n\n
\n\n

Citation
\nQuintana, 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

Support Everything Hertz