Just a quick point that I'm confused about. Reading Peters & Ceci's
article on peer review of journal articles, it seems that the peer
review is "non-blind", ie. the reviewers know who the authors are and
which institution they are from. It seems that the peer review
process SHOULD ensure that publication is on merit only. Surely the
fact that it is a non-blind process can only serve to open the door
to such undesirable factors as "institutional affiliation, paradigm
confirmation or theory support, editor-author friendship, old boy
networks" (P&C, p188).
There must be a reason as to why the process is non-blind, but
I'll be dashed if I can think what it is. Any ideas anyone?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 16:23:17 GMT