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