The Scientist has an opinion piece that insufficient evidence of peer review is happening in scholarly publishing. In it, the author writes a call for publishing of anonymized peer reviews.
Scientific rigor demands that claims be substantiated by evidence. If I claim that gene A regulates gene B and provide no evidence, my claim will be dismissed. It must be dismissed. Yet, if a journal claims to conduct peer review and provides no evidence of it, the claim is rarely dismissed.
However, given the specialized nature of some disciplines and the small number of researchers, it is likely that the anonymity would not last for long. How do Soylentils weigh in on the opinion piece?
[Ed's Comment: The link is unreliable, but patience tends to get through eventually]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 23 2018, @03:08PM
That's not a single man, he's at least 3.
Proof: on the promise of a single word, each of his personalities (that were the fastest to react) came with a different one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford