RAZD writes:
The question is whether the peer review should be anonymous or not.
I think that official things going into the official book of knowledge (does something that like even exist?) should not be anonymous.
Responsibility should be visible for peer reviewers and entry-makers alike.
But it’s being threatened, which is why we’re going to court to defend the First Amendment right to anonymity.
How is it being threatened?
The problem is that today’s peer review is a broken process. Too often, errors slip through, and they can go uncorrected for years. Even if they are eventually exposed, that’s often long after other researchers or clinical trials have relied upon them.
Okay.
I don't see how anonymous peer review helps this issue.
...errors slip through...
That's just the nature of humans.
Would anonymous peer review prevent human nature? Would it be 100% error free?
I think that "errors would still slip through" with anonymous peer review.
...they can go uncorrected for years...
How does anonymous peer review prevent this?
When anonymous peer reviews are done, there will be x% for the paper, y% against and z% undecided... So then what? Popular vote? That's not how things are done in science.
How does anonymous peer review help us understand which review is "correct"?
It seems to me, it would
still have the possibility to "go uncorrected for years."
Sounds to me like someone is just offering up an alternative system for the sake of offering up an alternative.
I don't see any advantage to switching over to "anonymous review" that doesn't bring along it's own disadvantage.
If there's no balance towards an advantage for switching over... why should the entire system switch?
That sounds like a "waste of taxpayers' money" to me.
™ Version 4.2
