93: Double-blind peer review vs. open science

Dan and James answer a listener question on how to navigate open science practices, such as preprints and open code repositories, in light of double-blind reviews.

Stuff they cover:

• How common is double-blind review?
• How many journals don’t accept preprints?
• Bias in the review process
• How practical is blinded review?
• Do the benefits of preprints outweighs not having blinded review?
• James' approach to getting comments on his preprints
• Convincing your supervisor to adopt open science practices
• The preprint that James won’t submit for publication, for some reason
• We get reviews...
• Our first live guest!

Other links

• [Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
• [James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
• [Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
• [Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

• $1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
• $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Citation
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, October 7) "Double-blind peer review vs. Open Science", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7ZPME

Support Everything Hertz