Double-blind peer review is already being tried out, and is a good way to go about it, but is rendered pointless under preprint culture, which, I feel is more important to preserve and promote.
I think the better solution is to have “open” peer review, where the review reports are also published, so that it becomes obvious when a shoddy job has been done, as affected by the Matthew principle.
Double-blind peer review is already being tried out, and is a good way to go about it, but is rendered pointless under preprint culture, which, I feel is more important to preserve and promote.
I think the better solution is to have “open” peer review, where the review reports are also published, so that it becomes obvious when a shoddy job has been done, as affected by the Matthew principle.