{"title":"不许偷看：同行评审和推定盲法","authors":"Nathan Ballantyne, Jared Celniker","doi":"10.1017/can.2024.25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Blind review is ubiquitous in contemporary science, but there is no consensus among stakeholders and researchers about when or how much or why blind review should be done. In this essay, we explain why blinding enhances the impartiality and credibility of science while also defending a norm according to which blind review is a baseline presumption in scientific peer review.","PeriodicalId":51573,"journal":{"name":"CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No Peeking: Peer Review and Presumptive Blinding\",\"authors\":\"Nathan Ballantyne, Jared Celniker\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/can.2024.25\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Blind review is ubiquitous in contemporary science, but there is no consensus among stakeholders and researchers about when or how much or why blind review should be done. In this essay, we explain why blinding enhances the impartiality and credibility of science while also defending a norm according to which blind review is a baseline presumption in scientific peer review.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51573,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2024.25\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2024.25","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Blind review is ubiquitous in contemporary science, but there is no consensus among stakeholders and researchers about when or how much or why blind review should be done. In this essay, we explain why blinding enhances the impartiality and credibility of science while also defending a norm according to which blind review is a baseline presumption in scientific peer review.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
