[Journal] Peer Review: Blind?

[Daniel Ames]

Agreed. Single blind is typically used in most of the other journals I
review for and/or submit papers to.  - Dan (Ames)

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Markus Neteler <neteler at osgeo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Micha Silver <micha at arava.co.il> wrote:
>> On 09/02/2010 03:31, Daniel Ames wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually I think that was my question (or both of us). I agree though
>>> that blind is a good idea - particularly in our small community. This
>>> allows a reviewer to give more constructive critiques than he/she
>>> might otherwise... -Dan
>>
>> I seem to recall that we discussed this question about a year (?) ago.
>> THere's something called "double blind" which I think we thought was
>> unnecessary.
>
> Just as a lurker on this list and as often-author and sometimes-reviewer:
>
> Double blind is overkill here (and also ridiculous given the community :).
>
> As Dan says: Single blind is fine and avoids that papers aren't
> appropriately criticized.
>
> Best,
> Markus
>



-- 
Daniel P. Ames, Ph.D. PE
Associate Professor, Geosciences
Idaho State University - Idaho Falls
amesdani at isu.edu
geology.isu.edu
www.hydromap.com
www.mapwindow.org

*************************************************************************
See you at MapWindow GIS 2010!
Orlando, Florida, USA
31 March - 2 April 2010
http://www.mapwindow.org/conference/2010

Also at:
AWRA GIS 2010: http://www.awra.org/meetings/Florida2010/
IEMSS 2010: http://www.iemss.org/iemss2010/
*************************************************************************