8 Comments

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

Nice.

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

good

Go to the profile of Eduards Krustiņš
Eduards Krustiņš about 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 Kandeepan Gurunathan
Kandeepan Gurunathan 11 months 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 3 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

well explained