Includes agricultural sciences/natural resources, biological/biomedical sciences, health sciences including dentistry, nursing, allied health, veterinary science
As an editor of a journal with a double-anonymous peer review system, I often wonder about the right balance between open science practices and anonymisation of the manuscript for the review process. How much anonymisation is enough while being compatible with open science dissemination?
A journal received the recommendation of a peer reviewer which expressed doubts about the validity of some of the data in an article. The editor-in-chief got in touch directly with the author and mediated to have the data validated by an outside contributor.
The authors responded by providing data validation by a colleague, who is now becoming a potential coauthor. The initial data were provided by the author and were convincingly validated.