Timeline for Double-blind review: submit a follow-up paper in a very short time
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 4, 2017 at 22:48 | comment | added | Captain Emacs | Putting too much honest effort in hiding identity can backfire spectacularly. We had a case where we most meticulously avoided indicating that a paper might be our own group's work (although we cited all relevant previous work). The paper was rejected because the reviewer said the "anonymous" we did not make sufficiently clear that we build on our "official" group's work. We did, but the reviewer clearly thought he did the "official" us a favour. | |
| Nov 4, 2017 at 21:58 | comment | added | user64845 | @TobiasKildetoft that's my thought. I mean we are using a custom build instrument in most of our research. We published it some time ago and we simply cite it if we need it. If we now write "The instrument described by Whoever et al. [1] was used for..." everyone will know it's our group. | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:49 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://academia.stackexchange.com/ with https://academia.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 29, 2016 at 18:12 | comment | added | Tobias Kildetoft | The approach described is the general set of guidelines for certain journals, regardless of whether the cited paper has been published. What I don't understand is how it can work in practice to have such guidelines. | |
| Apr 29, 2016 at 17:33 | comment | added | carnendil | @TobiasKildetoft I think that the approach described in @dsfgsho's answer is helpful in this particular case, especially, since the cited paper is not yet published. | |
| Apr 28, 2016 at 11:20 | comment | added | Ander Biguri | I think this is the way to go. You can also make a note and say that you can provide the still unpublished paper to the referees if needed. If the paper is really yours you should be able to remove the name from it easily! | |
| Apr 28, 2016 at 5:31 | comment | added | Tobias Kildetoft | I have never been able to figure out how it can work out to review papers with these guidelines. Either there will be parts that cannot be properly reviewed because they rely on information hidden from the reviewer, or the reviewer does know those things and thus also knows who the authors are. | |
| Apr 27, 2016 at 20:34 | history | answered | carnendil | CC BY-SA 3.0 |