You're reading the public-facing archive of the Category Theory Zulip server.
To join the server you need an invite. Anybody can get an invite by contacting Matteo Capucci at name dot surname at gmail dot com.
For all things related to this archive refer to the same person.
John Baez (Apr 16 2022 at 22:36):My wife, an academic in the humanities, has long been shocked that math hasn't adopted double-anonymous peer review, where the referees aren't told the identity of the authors. I tell her that it's usually easy to guess who wrote a paper - since most papers are on the arXiv - but she's not persuaded that this means we should simply give up. In the current system in math, almost the first thing a referee sees is the author's name and institution.
Anyway, the American Mathematical Society has decided to adopt double-anonymous peer review:
The AMS is pleased to announce the launch of double-anonymous peer review for Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society. Further rollout across all AMS journals is planned after the initial implementation is fine-tuned.
In double-anonymous peer review, both the authors and the referees of a journal article remain anonymous to each other. The motivation for this change is that the referee’s first impressions of a paper should not be dominated by its list of authors and their affiliations. Instead, double-anonymous refereeing focuses attention on the mathematics and lowers the likelihood of implicit bias, supporting inclusivity and diversity across mathematics.
Read more here.