Today begins a few-day vacation, but I was still working in the morning: Before we left the undisclosed location of the #dsesummit, I had a conversation with Ariel Rokem (Berkeley) and Josh Greenberg (Sloan Foundation) and Jake Vanderplas (UW) and others about developing and writing out in the open: This behavior is what I do, but it is antithetical to double-blind reviewing and other kinds of referee privilege. Since those models (and especially double-blind) are ethical models (that is, they are predicated on a set of ethical principles), could it be that my work-in-the-open practice is thereby unethical? I had this to think about on the bus back to NYC.
While not wracked with existential dread on the bus, I wrote notes and issues for our paper on Hack Weeks. There is so much to say in this document, and it has several audiences.
Why is double-blind referee privilege?
ReplyDelete(Those who talk too often about privilege should check their privilege. :-) )