Thread: Seriousness In science we Trust.
View Single Post
Old 10-17-2010, 04:18 PM   #49
Sparrow
Wizard
Sparrow ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sparrow ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sparrow ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sparrow ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sparrow ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sparrow ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sparrow ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sparrow ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sparrow ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sparrow ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sparrow ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 4,395
Karma: 1358132
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Device: Palm TX, CyBook Gen3
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
One reason, though, that the peer-review process is anonymous (the reviewer doesn't know the name of the author(s) of the article being reviewed, and the author doesn't know who's reviewing it) is to try to eliminate the element of personal bias.
But there are reports of gender bias in scientific paper publication, and according to a Scientific American blog entry :
"Standard practice is: reviewers selected for their expertise and fluency in the chosen discipline are aware of all authors' names and affiliations, while authors are kept in the dark about the identity of their reviewers (although some journals allow them to request specific referees). The growing argument against this lopsided method is that knowledge of author's identity gender, nationality, research institution, level of experience in the field can (and does) bias reviewers' opinions on the merit of the research."
Sparrow is offline   Reply With Quote