HIBAR: What’s that?
Post publication peer review has been around as an idea for a while as science blogging has taken off. The ‘Had I Been A Reviewer’ version was suggested by Dan Simons on his blog. I had the idea for this blog as a way to facilitate finding HIBAR posts and providing a place for people without blogs to generate HIBAR reviews, because I think it’s a great idea; simply read and critique a paper as if you were actually one of the reviewers and put that critique somewhere it can be seen. The goal is simply to make it clear that psychological science is a living discipline and publication is not the final word on a topic.
I’m hoping two things will happen. First, that this will be a collection of peer reviewing that’s supposed to be seen by lots of people. Doing more of this in public is a good idea, I think. Second, there are just a lot of papers that really needed more scrutiny before publication. These posts can serve as a ‘good practice’ guide: what are the many important questions that really need answers?
Who can submit?
Anyone with the ability to sensibly peer review published experimental psychological literature. You know who you are.
How can I submit something?
I would like to submit something anonymously.
I am personally a big fan of signing your reviews. I think anonymity encourages dickishness, or at least allows it room to grow. That said, there are many legitimate reasons for wanting to be anonymous (worried about pissing off that senior figure in your field, being a student, being a woman in a depressingly male academic world). If one of these applies and you would like to submit something anonymously, you can. However, I strongly encourage people to put their names to their critiques, especially more senior people, to help make named reviewing a more normal thing to do.
Can I help?
Oh God yes. I’ve set this up quickly but don’t really have time to do everything. Email me (email@example.com) and we can chat.
Who are you?