Reply #123: Not entirely correct. Blind review is specific to discipline. [View All]

[moc]

I publish in the psych and public health literatures. My reviews are blinded. However, I know of other academics (my father, a retired organic chemist, and an infectious disease epidemiologist are two specific instances) who have told me that many of their journals are not blinded. I was really surprised because I had operated under the assumption for years that blinded review was the standard across the board.

Also, if one has been publishing in a specific literature for a while, often one can tell who the authors are or who the group is based on the sample description, etc. So, blinding isn't always perfect. It is possible for individual researchers to slam another peer in the review process for a reason other than academic merit (academics are human and the egos can be gargantuan, lol). However, the supposition that a whole group of academics would target a single "maverick thinker" without cause is just silly. Anyone who works in the field knows that getting academics to act in concert is like trying to herd cats, lol.

Hope you don't think I'm picking on you. I'm reading through your posts on this thread and you are very on point and very correct on how you describe academic research working. Just this tiny correction on blinded review.

By the way, I had to complete a mandatory ethics training last week for my university (blech!), and there was one section SPECIFICALLY about when I'm allowed to present myself as "Dr. MOC of XXX University". I can only do that when I am presenting myself in relation to work I've done in my official capacity as a University XXX faculty member. That's probably why BYU has suspended Jones pending this review.

Question: Do you know if Jones was tenured?