Dan and James answer a listener question on how to navigate open science practices, such as preprints and open code repositories, in light of double-blind reviews.

Stuff they cover:

How common is double-blind review?
How many journals don’t accept preprints?
Bias in the review process
How practical is blinded review?
Do the benefits of preprints outweighs not having blinded review?
James' approach to getting comments on his preprints
Convincing your supervisor to adopt open science practices
The preprint that James won’t submit for publication, for some reason
We get reviews...
Our first live guest!

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Citation
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, October 7) "Double-blind peer review vs. Open Science", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7ZPME

Support Everything Hertz

93: Double-blind peer review vs. open science