93: Double-blind peer review vs. open science

Episode 93 · October 7th, 2019 · 54 mins 46 secs

About this Episode

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!

Other links

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

Support Everything Hertz

Episode Comments