Is Peer Review a Good Idea? (2020)
As someone who is inside the academic publication loop, I am in favor of double-blind, non-public peer reviews because I don&#x27;t want to invite 4Chan into my daily work.<p>I believe that double-blind, non-public reviews do a great job at protecting those in a more precarious situation: grad students are not judged by their lack of publication record, there is no permanent public record of all those times they got rejected, and reviewers can be both more honest and more certain that a rejection won&#x27;t lead to a 4Chan&#x2F;Twitter mob coming for them.<p>According to the ACL&#x27;s 2019 survey [1], &quot;female respondents were less likely to support public review than male respondents&quot;. I&#x27;d be weary of implementing any changed that would make academia even more hostile to women and minorities.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;acl2019pcblog.fileli.unipi.it&#x2F;wp-content&#x2F;uploads&#x2F;2019&#x2F;07&#x2F;ReportACL2019ReviewingSurvey.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;acl2019pcblog.fileli.unipi.it&#x2F;wp-content&#x2F;uploads&#x2F;2019...</a>