Timeline for Math journals which publish/reject quickly
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 1, 2021 at 21:51 | comment | added | Francesco Polizzi | It seems that the journal guidelines switched back on the classical "double-blind" terminology. I do not know the reason ("double-anonymous" was ok, after all): springer.com/journal/44007/submission-guidelines | |
| Jun 16, 2021 at 19:34 | comment | added | Ben Webster♦ | @FrancescoPolizzi If you ask Google for the meaning of "blind," the relevant definition is "lacking perception, awareness, or discernment" which I regard as meaning essentially the same as "lacking the ability to fully know the world." I must add that I am not a native English speaker, so maybe I miss some nuances when considering the metaphorical expressions. Another excellent argument for not using these kind of metaphors, since they don't translate well into all languages and cultures. | |
| Jun 15, 2021 at 18:14 | comment | added | Francesco Polizzi | I must add that I am not a native English speaker, so maybe I miss some nuances when considering the metaphorical expressions. | |
| Jun 15, 2021 at 18:07 | comment | added | Francesco Polizzi | @BenWebster: thanks for the link. I must say that I am not really convinced by Tremain's claim that, since the "blind reviewer" does not know the author, this "conditions us to consider blind people as those who are lacking the ability to fully know the world, and this perpetuates negative stereotypes about blind people". This inference seems to me a bit of a leap. However, I get her point. | |
| Jun 15, 2021 at 17:29 | comment | added | Ben Webster♦ | @FrancescoPolizzi I think this is an interesting read on the subject: blog.apaonline.org/2020/02/20/an-end-to-blind-review In very short terms: the point is not that being being "blind" is something to be ashamed of, but that the point of "blind review" is a metaphorical use of "blind" that makes it synonymous with "ignorant" which I can certainly see people being bothered by (some other similar expressions in English are more obviously negative: "I was blinded to X by Y," etc.). | |
| Jun 15, 2021 at 0:01 | comment | added | Francesco Polizzi | @TimothyChow: Yes, I agree that "Doubly-Anonymous" is a precise description of this kind of refereeing process. | |
| Jun 14, 2021 at 23:36 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | @FrancescoPolizzi The use of "blind" in this context doesn't strike me as ableist either, but "anonymous" does have the virtue of being more precise. Only the names/identities of the people concerned are suppressed; other communication is allowed to happen. | |
| Jun 14, 2021 at 15:07 | comment | added | Francesco Polizzi | Thinking of this, maybe the relevant question is: are there any evidences that the majority of people with vision impairment consider the metaphor "double blind review" (or "double blind experiment", or "double blind trial") as offensive? But ok, this is off-topic here. | |
| Jun 14, 2021 at 14:00 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Ben Webster♦ | ||
| Jun 14, 2021 at 13:51 | comment | added | Francesco Polizzi | "We use this term [Doubly-Anonymous] rather than the (currently) more common term using ableist language". I really do not understand. To me, it seems more ableist deciding to eliminate the metaphorical (and innocent) use of "blind", as if blindness were something to be ashamed of, or not to be said. But it is surely my fault... | |
| Jun 14, 2021 at 13:08 | history | answered | the L | CC BY-SA 4.0 |