Re: Transparent and/or anonymous attribution in scholarly communication

On 2016-11-10 09:02, Penaloza Nyssen Rafael wrote:
> Dear Sarven,

Hi Rafael, thank you for your feedback.

>   you should be aware of the medium you use. Email is not the same as a
> tweet.  My suggestion for the future is that you add context to your
> question. I for one still have no idea what the question means. Whatever
> data you gather from it will also be useless as it is ambiguous.

Sorry, you are right that an intro would have helped.

I'd like to get an informal feedback on academics' preference on 
attribution of their contributions: authoring and peer-reviews. For 
example, do people prefer to see transparency (having a name, 
identifier, affiliation.. attached to the individuals) on both sides? or 
anonymity on both? or a mix due to their specific field? ... Is there a 
preference that's significant?

Trying to understand this requires a much deeper study. There are 
studies out there that examine this properly and far better than a tweet 
can. So, this is really an informal poll, and not all variables are 
accounted or controlled for, e.g., target audience and culture, stage of 
the publication/review. The phrasing is such that the "intended" 
audience understand fine. There is some bias related to the social 
network. I will not make any generalisations from it. Will present the 
results as is "for whatever it is worth".

-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i

Received on Thursday, 10 November 2016 10:14:45 UTC