123: Authenticated anonymity (with Michael Eisen)

Part two of our chat with Michael Eisen (eLife Editor-in-Cheif), in which we discuss the pros and cons of collaborative peer review, journal submission interfaces, Michael's take on James' proposal that peer reviewers should be paid $450 dollars, why negative comments on peer reviews need to be normalised, plus much more. Some more details: The pros and cons of collaborative peer review (in which all peer reviewers discuss the paper after all individual peer reviews have been submitted How technology can constrain journal operations The strange engineered delay in paper reviews (I doesn't take 2-3 weeks to review a paper) Michael's proposal for a system in which people can nominate they have time in the near future to review a paper and then papers can be sent to them so they're rapidly reviewed Journal submission interfaces Michael's take on paying peer reviewers Who owns peer reviews? Would negative (anonomous or not) comments on an open peer review report penalise authors in the future? Every paper gets negative peer-review comments, this doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad paper Michael proposes an explicit "speculation" section for papers, where authors get free reign to basically say whatever they want Other links [Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana) [James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers) [Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast) [Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/) Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/) Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff! $1 a month: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show - $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month Episode citationSpecial Guest: Michael Eisen.