Go to the profile of Yasin Ghulam
Yasin Ghulam over 1 year ago


Go to the profile of Muhammad Naeem Nizam
Muhammad Naeem Nizam over 1 year ago


Go to the profile of Eduards Krustiņš
Eduards Krustiņš over 1 year ago

It would be interesting to know, why double-blind review process is still optional for Nature, when it's being agreed that implicit bias can be avoided by blinding both sides.

Go to the profile of Andre Paulino de Lima
Andre Paulino de Lima about 2 months ago


Go to the profile of Kandeepan Gurunathan
Kandeepan Gurunathan over 1 year ago

Well said

Go to the profile of Venkata Sai Kiran Chakravadhanula

Hence Double Blind Peer Review is very good....

Go to the profile of Kamuyu Mwai
Kamuyu Mwai 7 months ago

& there Elisa brought it out clearly. Most works are rejected not cause they are irrelevant but due to where their authors are from. Again some works (& this influences citations) are granted "clean bill of health" due to where they emanate from (author's institution etc) & this has had negative results as far as Science progression is concerned.

Go to the profile of Raghed ibrahim esmaeel

very good 

Go to the profile of Masoumeh Majidi zolbin
Masoumeh Majidi zolbin 5 months ago

well explained 

Go to the profile of Rakesh Kumar
Rakesh Kumar about 1 month ago

good one