188: Double-blind peer review vs. scientific integrity

About this episode

Dan and James discuss a recent editorial which argues that double-blind peer review is detrimental to scientific integrity.

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 James on Bluesky Everything Hertz on Bluesky Support us on Patreon 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 Support Everything Hertz

People in this episode

Hosts: Dan, James

Topics covered

• double-blind peer review
• scientific integrity

Keywords

• editorial
• peer review
• science

More episodes of Everything Hertz

• 195: Living meta-analysis · January 14, 2026 · 37 min
• 194: Author verification · November 10, 2025 · 44 min
• 193: The pop-up journal · August 7, 2025 · 59 min
• 192: Outsourcing in academia · July 1, 2025 · 48 min
• 191: Cleaning up contaminated medical treatment guidelines · June 3, 2025 · 48 min
• 190: What happens when you pay reviewers? · April 2, 2025 · 44 min