Thread by @annargrs

Preprint anonymity debate continues!

TLDR for those who missed the prior discussion: non-anonymous preprints systematically disadvantage the unknown labs and/or underrepresented communities.
My previous post: hackingsemantics.xyz/2020/anonymity/ /1

A new post by @ducha_aiki and @amy_tabb argues that fairness comes at a steep opportunity cost for the small labs. Full text here: amytabb.com/ts/2020_08_21/
/2

To summarize both posts, we have the following trade-off for the unknown/underrepresented authors:

* anonymous preprints: better acceptance chance;
* arXiv: lower acceptance chance, but more chances to try to promote unpublished work and get invited for talks and interviews.
/3

So the choice is fairer acceptance vs faster career-building.

I'd personally still vote for anonymous preprints. The field is getting so crowded that PR makes more and more difference => we're starting to select for journalistic/networking skills rather than better science. /4

Neither of us can speak for everyone, though. Perhaps what we need to do is to ask a large sample of grad students (with a fair share of those from non-famous institutions and underrepresented communities)? And not on Twitter, as people here are already active networkers. /5

I'd also love to hear from the hiring side: as a recruiter/potential PI, would you rather screen students based on fewer papers (the published ones), or the whole unfiltered pool of all the preprints and code? Is it better to have more/fresher data - or less to wade through?
/6

Last but not least: @ducha_aiki and @amy_tabb also bring up the fact that non-virtual conferences by themselves hold up the demographic status quo, since many underrepresented/non-famous authors can't get visas or afford the travel even if accepted. /7

The conference cost filter is actually the same whether preprints are anonymous or not. Also, for the unknown/underrepresented authors to even try to get a remote presentation, they have to be accepted first - and they have a higher chance of that if review is anonymous. /8

Still, this point is smth to keep in mind in the debate on going back to offline conferences. Yes, they are much more effective and pleasant, but this needs to be weighed against both the social and carbon costs. /9

@threadreaderapp unroll