Thursday, May 19, 2011

Thirsty: Blind peer review

But Doktor Snarky,
vee are already fameeliar
with this scholarship! In vact,
we are using it in
our own monograf!
Q. If you sent an article out for blind peer review, and it had the exact same title as a conference talk you had previously given, would you remove that conference talk listing from your faculty web page?

Or would you just not care that your blind peer reviewer could google you in a nanosecond?

A. Go on, reply below.


  1. I would not bother. Blind peer reviewers can often find out who you are by opening up the "Properties" menu in Microsoft Word.

    But then again, I don't worry too much about sabotage. Perhaps my career isn't worth sabotaging...

  2. In my field, it would be very easy to figure out for most of my papers who I am. There just aren't that many people working on certain topics.

    Besides, the conference programs will probably show up independently of my online c.v.

    Changing the title might help, depending on the field.

  3. I suspect there's a pretty good chance the peer reviewer was at the conference and knows your work anyway.

  4. No need to delete it. Proffies don't know how to do this new-fangled "Google" thing. All undergrads know that. It's why we can never catch them when they cut-n-paste from Wikipedia.

  5. According to the silverbacks, "blind" peer review is rarely blind.

  6. "No need to delete it. Proffies don't know how to do this new-fangled "Google" thing. All undergrads know that. It's why we can never catch them when they cut-n-paste from Wikipedia."
    - Dude the Obscure

    If the punishments were more severe, maybe the little shits would do their own work. Start hacking off thumbs and things would change.

  7. Some people, for the sake of full disclosure, add a footnote to the title on the lines of "a first version of this paper was delivered in the Fruitbat Studies International Conference."

  8. FWIW, I'm not the author--I'm the googling peer reviewer. (Only when a piece is particularly stunning or particularly terrible, of course; that's when curiosity gets the best of me.)

  9. I'm pretty sure the Chronicle doesn't mind us just using their graphics.

    Or, they do and I'm being an ass about it.

  10. This is actually a drawing by James Yang that was used in Paradigm magazine, but Yang is a frequent illustrator for the Chronicle.

    I encourage folks - again, please - NOT to use graphics that belong to someone else. RYS and CM have always tried to edit, merge, obscure, futz with any graphics we've used on the sites.

    This graphic is even used without credit.

  11. Well. I'd edit the post to delete the image, but Blogger is broken.

    Fab, if you have an image policy, put it in the Rules of Misery. I'm not a mindreader, and I don't read every post here, but I do respect the rules.

    I mean, seriously.

  12. I'm sorry Snarky. I've commented on the policy several times, but you're right that it is not in the rules. I apologize that I've mentioned it to you poorly. I'm trying to protect the blog, and it's not personal in any way.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.