 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 5 | 1/1 | 返回列表 |
| 查看: 4013 | 回復: 7 | |||
| 當前只顯示滿足指定條件的回帖，點擊這里查看本話題的所有回帖 | |||
[交流]
關于雙盲審，nature上的一個新聞，大家啥看法？
|
|||
|
News from Nature： http://www.nature.com/news/journ ... peer-review-1.15564 Journals weigh up double-blind peer review Anonymity of authors as well as reviewers could level field for women and minorities in science. Daniel Cressey 15 July 2014 In efforts to increase fairness in science publishing, some journals are experimenting with the idea of ‘blinding’ reviewers to the identity of the authors Some researchers have long worried that manuscripts submitted for publication are judged not on the quality of the work but on the reputation of the author submitting it. Although authors are rarely told who is reviewing their work, reviewers generally are informed of whose papers they are evaluating. But last week an article in Conservation Biology1 revealed that journal would be considering ‘double blind’ peer review — in which neither the reviewer nor the reviewed knows the other’s identity. Double-blind peer review is common in the humanities and social sciences, but very few scientific journals have adopted it. Mark Burgman, a biologist at the University of Melbourne in Australia and editor-in-chief of Conservation Biology, says that the journal has been exploring the possibility since last year and found that it has “overwhelming support”, especially among younger and minority scientists. The journal’s editors now plan to discuss the move with the board and with the broader membership of the Society for Conservation Biology, which owns the journal. “If we do it, we expect it will be permanent, and that the change will take place over the next 12 months,” Burgman says. Emily Darling, a marine conservation researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, points out that unconscious biases have been shown in many instances to lead to discrimination against women. In one study2, otherwise identical CVs were ranked higher by tenure-track academics if they came with male names than if they came with female names. “I’m really not pointing the finger,” says Darling, who wrote the new Conservation Biology article. “We all hold biases.” Double-blind peer review has the potential to get more women and minorities into top-level jobs in science, where they are heavily underrepresented. As appointment to such roles often depends on a strong academic publication record, removing potential biases against women from scientific publishing could be a contribution, says Darling. One criticism of double-blind reviewing is that in many cases reviewers will be able to guess who the authors are, owing to the high specialization that science research usually involves. But supporters say that although this is inevitable in some cases, in others the guesses will be wrong, and that the element of doubt increases fairness. Fair trial A trial of double-blind peer reviewing is going on at Nature Publishing Group (NPG), which owns Nature. Since June 2013, Nature Geoscience and Nature Climate Change have offered double-blind peer review as an option for those submitting manuscripts. Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature and Nature-branded journals, says: “There is a widespread concern out there that referees may be biased by the authorship of a paper.” But Campbell adds that it is too early to evaluate the trials under way at these two journals, and that there is little evidence that a change from the current system to a double-blind one would alter what is published. By December 2013 only around 15% of authors submitting to the Nature Geoscience had chosen double-blind review and around 22% in Nature Climate Change, although many readers had expressed support for it. The authors of the editorials reporting this figure suggested3 that the discrepancy may be down to the fact that many authors were not aware of the option at the start of the process or were concerned for example that editing the paper to remove all identifying information could delay their submission. “We have had huge interest from people to see how it’s going. Our editorial announcing this was one of our most read,” says Heike Langenberg, chief editor of Nature Geoscience. One problem with the experiment run by the two NPG journals is that double-blind review is optional, so authors with big reputations can choose to still benefit from them. Conservation Biology is considering mandatory double-blind review. Langenberg says that both NPG journals will probably continue offering double-blind review as an option, but “making it mandatory is not something that’s on the horizon” and would require strong support from the community. Alastair Brown, associate editor at Nature Climate Change, says that the journals are investigating what authors and referees think about the possibility of indicating how each paper published was reviewed, and whether this reflects well on papers that underwent double-blind review. Support for double-blind reviewing seems to be growing. “It makes the review process a bit more scientific,” says Brown. “Removing the opportunity for subconscious bias is a good thing.” Nature doi:10.1038/nature.2014.15564 |
回復此樓» 猜你喜歡
283分材料與化工求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有10人回復
-
材料調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有6人回復
-
材料340分調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有6人回復
-
321求調(diào)劑 一志愿 浙江工業(yè)大學生物醫(yī)藥
已經(jīng)有6人回復
-
085801 總分275 本科新能源 求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有19人回復
-
285求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有13人回復
-
280求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有5人回復
-
一志愿085600中科院寧波所276分求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有27人回復
-
071000生物學調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有5人回復
-
26考研調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有4人回復
» 本主題相關價值貼推薦，對您同樣有幫助:
- 會議雙盲審意見
已經(jīng)有5人回復
- 博士論文被抽中忙上海市盲審，對著有所了解的請進
已經(jīng)有5人回復
nono2009
超級版主 (文學泰斗)
No gains, no pains.
-
專家經(jīng)驗: +21105 - SEPI: 10
- 應助: 28684 (院士)
- 貴賓: 513.911
- 金幣: 2555230
- 散金: 27828
- 紅花: 2148
- 沙發(fā): 66666
- 帖子: 1602255
- 在線: 65200.9小時
- 蟲號: 827383
- 注冊: 2009-08-13
- 性別: GG
- 專業(yè): 工程熱物理與能源利用
- 管轄: 科研家籌備委員會
3樓2014-07-16 08:12:37
CKX
木蟲 (著名寫手)
- 應助: 45 (小學生)
- 金幣: 2261.1
- 散金: 133
- 紅花: 8
- 帖子: 1413
- 在線: 186.5小時
- 蟲號: 602271
- 注冊: 2008-09-14
- 專業(yè): 理論和計算化學
2樓2014-07-16 08:09:55
★ ★
smallfolk: 金幣+2 2014-07-16 15:29:27
smallfolk: 金幣+2 2014-07-16 15:29:27
| 祝福祝福祝福祝福祝福祝福祝福祝福祝福祝福祝福祝福 |
5樓2014-07-16 08:49:09
lllltt
鐵桿木蟲 (正式寫手)
- 應助: 12 (小學生)
- 金幣: 6918.8
- 散金: 53
- 帖子: 749
- 在線: 355.1小時
- 蟲號: 727351
- 注冊: 2009-03-20
- 性別: GG
- 專業(yè): 其他無機非金屬材料
7樓2014-07-16 08:59:53
| 最具人氣熱帖推薦 [查看全部] | 作者 | 回/看 | 最后發(fā)表 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[基金申請]
請問共同通訊和共同一作的認可度問題
 10+3
|
psa1234 2026-04-01 | 4/200 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 266分，一志愿電氣工程，本科材料，求材料專業(yè)調(diào)劑 +4 | 哇呼哼呼哼 2026-04-02 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 0856材料與化工調(diào)劑，339 +13 | 10213207 2026-03-31 | 13/650 |
|
|
|
[考研] 0805求調(diào)劑 +8 | 是水分 2026-03-31 | 8/400 |
|
|
|
[考研] 一志愿北交大材料工程總分358 +8 | cs0106 2026-04-01 | 9/450 |
|
|
|
[考研] 289求調(diào)劑 +23 | 新時代材料 2026-03-27 | 26/1300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 333求調(diào)劑 +3 | 12138。、m?x?b 2026-03-26 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 江蘇科技大學招材料研究生 +4 | Su032713. 2026-04-01 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 362求調(diào)劑 +13 | 西南交材料專碩3 2026-03-31 | 13/650 |
|
|
|
[考研] 考研調(diào)劑 +9 | 小蠟新筆 2026-03-29 | 10/500 |
|
|
|
[考研] 本科211安全工程，初試290分，求調(diào)劑 +3 | 2719846834 2026-03-28 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 085404 22408 315分 +5 | zhuangyan123 2026-03-31 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 調(diào)劑求院校招收 +7 | 鶴鯨鴿 2026-03-28 | 7/350 |
|
|
|
[考研] 一志愿中海洋320化學工程與技術學碩求調(diào)劑 +8 | 披星河 2026-03-30 | 8/400 |
|
|
|
[考研] 哈爾濱工業(yè)大學材料與化工專碩378求調(diào)劑 +3 | 塔比烏斯 2026-03-30 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 一志愿南開大學0710生物學359求調(diào)劑 +5 | 兔兔兔111223314 2026-03-29 | 7/350 |
|
|
|
[考研] 332求調(diào)劑 +6 | @MZB382400 2026-03-28 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 332求92調(diào)劑 +8 | 蕉蕉123 2026-03-28 | 8/400 |
|
|
|
[考研] 081200-314 +3 | LILIQQ 2026-03-27 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 285求調(diào)劑 +4 | AZMK 2026-03-27 | 7/350 |
|