scholarly journals More about peer review: is it time for double-blind reviews?

2001 ◽  
Vol 2 (10) ◽  
pp. 892-892
Author(s):  
John R. Klein
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Reviews

The Case For and Against Double-blind Reviews

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amelia R Cox ◽  
Robert Montgomerie
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gender Bias ◽  
Behavioral Ecology ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Female Authors ◽  
Female Authorship ◽  
Blind Reviews ◽  
Single Blind

To date, the majority of authors on scientific publications have been men. While much of this gender bias can be explained by historic sexism and discrimination, there is concern that women may still be disadvantaged by the peer review process if reviewers' unconscious biases lead them to reject publications with female authors more often. One potential solution to this perceived gender bias in the reviewing process is for journals to adopt double-blind reviews whereby neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other's identities and genders. To test the efficacy of double-blind reviews, we assigned gender to every authorship of every paper published in 5 different journals with different peer review processes (double-blind vs. single blind) and subject matter (birds vs. behavioral ecology) from 2010-2018 (n = 4865 papers). While female authorships comprised only 35% of the total, the double-blind journal Behavioral Ecology did not have more female authorships than its single-blind counterparts. Interestingly, the incidence of female authorship is higher at behavioral ecology journals (Behavioral Ecology and Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology) than in the ornithology journals (Auk, Condor, Ibis), for papers on all topics as well as those on birds. These analyses suggest that double-blind review does not currently increase the incidence of female authorship in the journals studied here. We conclude, at least for these journals, that double-blind review does not benefit female authors and may, in the long run, be detrimental.

scholarly journals Single-Blind and Double-Blind Peer Review: Effects on National Representation

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Meghana Kalavar ◽  
Arjun Watane ◽  
David Wu ◽  
Jayanth Sridhar ◽  
Prithvi Mruthyunjaya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
National Representation ◽  
Single Blind

scholarly journals Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer?

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth C Moylan ◽  
Simon Harold ◽  
Ciaran O’Neill ◽  
Maria K Kowalczuk
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Single Blind

scholarly journals Peer-Review Declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 869 (1) ◽  
pp. 011003
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Preliminary Review ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Conference Series ◽  
Scientific Standards

Abstract All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Double-blind • Number of submissions received: 94 papers • Number of submissions sent for review: 94 papers • Number of submissions accepted: 74 papers • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 78.72% • Average number of reviews per paper: 3 papers • Total number of reviewers involved: 31 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: 1. Preliminary review 2. The papers passed the first review will be reviewed again from the following aspects: originality, innovation, technical soundness, and applicability Ilham Zulfahmi Email: [email protected] Universitas Syiah Kuala

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 905 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Research And Development ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Conference Management ◽  
Development Center ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Maximum Threshold

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer-reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Double-blind with the opportunity to resubmit after revisions • Conference submission management system: Microsoft’s Conference Management Toolkit (Microsoft CMT). The submission url is https://cmt3.research.microsoft.com/User/Login?ReturnUrl=%2FICSAE2021 • Number of submissions received: 224 • Number of submissions sent for review: 198 • Number of submissions accepted: 148 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 66.07% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 18 • Any additional info on the review process: all papers were checked for its similarity using Turnitin, and 25% similar was set as maximum threshold. • Contact person for queries: Name: Prof. Sri Hartati Affiliation: Research and Development Center for Biotechnology and Biodiversity (P3BB) Universitas Sebelas Maret Email: [email protected]

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 941 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Reference List ◽  
Scientific Content ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Content Quality ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Academic Debate

Abstract All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Double-blind • Conference submission management system: MeisterTask CRM • Number of submissions received: 72 • Number of submissions sent for review: 57 • Number of submissions accepted: 39 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 54% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 6 • Any additional info on review process: In general, each article was checked for scientific content, quality of the English language and technical formatting. Reviewers rated the following (5 excellent, 1 poor): Relevance to the themes; Contribution to academic debate; Structure of the paper; Standard of English; Appropriateness of abstract; Appropriateness and number of keywords; Appropriateness of the research/study method; Literature review; Relevance and clarity of drawings, graphs, and tables; Results and findings; Discussion and conclusions; Reference list. In the absence of a scientific component of an article, authors right to revision was rejected. In other cases, correction notes were sent to authors. • Contact person for queries: Anastasia Kulachinskaya, [email protected]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document