Yeah, it’s definitely a kind of messy tradeoff. My sense is just that the aggregate statistics you provided didn’t have that many bits of evidence that would allow me to independently audit a trust chain.
A thing that I do think might be more feasible is to make it opt-in for advisors to be public. E.g. SFF only had a minority of recommenders be public about their identity, but I do still think it helps a good amount to have some names.
(Also, just for historical consistency: Most peer review in the history of science was not anonymous. Anonymous peer review is a quite recent invention, and IMO not one with a great track record. Editorial peer review with non-anonymous references was more common throughout the history of the sciences. Emulating anonymous peer review without comparing it to the other options that IMO have a better track record seems a bit cargo-culty to me)
Yeah, it’s definitely a kind of messy tradeoff. My sense is just that the aggregate statistics you provided didn’t have that many bits of evidence that would allow me to independently audit a trust chain.
A thing that I do think might be more feasible is to make it opt-in for advisors to be public. E.g. SFF only had a minority of recommenders be public about their identity, but I do still think it helps a good amount to have some names.
(Also, just for historical consistency: Most peer review in the history of science was not anonymous. Anonymous peer review is a quite recent invention, and IMO not one with a great track record. Editorial peer review with non-anonymous references was more common throughout the history of the sciences. Emulating anonymous peer review without comparing it to the other options that IMO have a better track record seems a bit cargo-culty to me)