188: Double-blind peer review vs. scientific integrity cover art

188: Double-blind peer review vs. scientific integrity

188: Double-blind peer review vs. scientific integrity

Listen for free

View show details

About this listen

 Dan and James discuss a recent editorial which argues that double-blind peer review is detrimental to scientific integrity. Links * The editorial from Christopher Mebane: https://doi.org/10.1093/etojnl/vgae046 Other links Everything Hertz on Bluesky - Dan on Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/dsquintana.bsky.social) - James on Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/jamesheathers.bsky.social) - Everything Hertz on Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/hertzpodcast.bsky.social) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) and get bonus stuff! $1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show $5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month Citation Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2025, Jan 30). Double-blind peer review vs. scientific integrity, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/6XS29

What listeners say about 188: Double-blind peer review vs. scientific integrity

Average Customer Ratings

Reviews - Please select the tabs below to change the source of reviews.

Audible.com.au reviews

Amazon Reviews
No Reviews are Available
In the spirit of reconciliation, Audible acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respect to their elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.