This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 of this Preprint.
Downloads
Authors
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 13:11
License
CC BY Attribution 4.0 International
Additional Metadata
Language:
English
Conflict of interest statement:
None
Data and Code Availability Statement:
Not applicable”
There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.