Academic Peer Review
The cluster discusses the peer review process in academic publishing, focusing on anonymity, blind reviews, flaws like bias and collusion, use of AI by reviewers, incentives, and challenges with preprints like arXiv.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
Do you work in an environment where design or code review feedback is anonymous? So why would it be the case for internal peer review of a paper?
I thought that blind peer-reviews solved this?
This will probably be something that the reviewers bring up. Arxiv papers haven't been peer reviewed yet!
Peer review doesn't do what you think it does.
In an ideal world, the peer reviewers wouldn't know the author of the paper, right?
They seem to be opposed to peer review?
Examine the facts:- Many research fields have anywhere between 3 and 10 groups working in them.- A review always transpires the background of the reviewer. You just cannot "mask" the shape of your knowledge around a highly-specialized subject. This includes your approach to the problem, the issues you are most interested in (and hence know more about), the references you give, etc.With a closed system, you only get to see:- Reviews of your own paper, without knowing who wro
Every paper we submitted went through a technical review as well as legal and IP reviews. They were along the lines of cite this, cite that, run these experiments etc.What's different in her case is that you don't see the names of the people reviewing. Being the devil's advocate, she MIGHT have a pattern of aggressively attacking people who reviewed their work before. So they might have made the reviewers anonymous this time.
Are reviewers of academic papers not typically anonymous anyway? Or is this some kind of internal review system rather than academic peer review?
Based on my experience, many reviewers are already using AI extensively. I recently ran reviewer feedback from a top CS conference through an AI detector, and two out of three responses were clearly flagged as AI-generated.In my view, the peer-review process is flawed. Reviewers have little incentive to engage meaningfully. There’s no financial compensation, and often no way to even get credit for it. It would be cool to have something like a Google Scholar page for reviewers to showcase thei