Blindingly Transparent – Anonymity in an Era of Openness: A Reply to Cardini

This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 of this Preprint.

Add a Comment

You must log in to post a comment.


Comments

There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.

Downloads

Download Preprint

Authors

Shinichi Nakagawa , Malgorzata Lagisz

Abstract

We welcome and appreciate the comment from Cardini [1] on our “ABC of academic writing” [2]. Cardini rightly points out that some of our advice could lead to revealing one’s identity inadvertently, jeopardising the double-blind peer review process. Importantly, there is a wealth of evidence that the effectiveness of double-blind review can prevent biases resulting from traditional single-blind review (for a randomised trial from our field, see [3]). Therefore, Cardini argues that preserving equity in the peer review system and writing the text in a way that maintains anonymity is imperative. We concur with this point.

DOI

https://doi.org/10.32942/X2CG8W

Subjects

Life Sciences

Keywords

open science, double-blind review

Dates

Published: 2024-07-11 21:11

License

CC BY Attribution 4.0 International

Additional Metadata

Language:
English

Conflict of interest statement:
None

Data and Code Availability Statement:
Not applicable”