@harish77@moorejh this would be then double anonymized peer review model which has been shown to mitigate bias... but most journals don't use that model...
@askdheeraj @moorejh this would be a single anonymized model presumably where the reviewer could see who the author was... and breaching ethical norms/policy was by eliminating the confidentiality by informing the author of his identity...and then asking for money!
The big publishers did not popularize the APC model. Most publishers, big and small, thought it was dangerous. Pieces like this editorial are misrepresenting the history of what actually happened.
@lisalibrarian I don't understand eliminate subscription value....that was what APCs did. The tech, the work, the expertise across all phases of publication lifecycle has value & costs. Another nudge? Eliminating research publication from professional eval. and funding.
@lisalibrarian Accessibility and inclusivity core values do drive committment at @ScholarlyPub ... also fortunate to have sponsorship and volunteers who make it possible...
Launch: A Focused Toolkit for Journal Editors and Publishers: Building DEIA in Editorial Roles and Peer Review. Supports the building of a more inclusive editorial community to create broad representation on editorial boards & ensure fair peer review.
https://t.co/Ubi10Y9LEu