The Effects of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review

Abstract

Blinded reviewers and editors in this study, but not nonblinded reviewers, gave better scores to authors with more previous articles. These results suggest that blinded reviewers may provide more unbiased reviews and that nonblinded reviewers may be affected by various types of bias.

Open Peer Review: Fast Forward for a New Science

“…On the other hand, various studies have not been able to determine with precision if this new openness has made peer review more equitable (Fisher, Friedman, & Strauss, 1994;McNutt, Evans, Fletcher, & Fletcher, 1990;Van Rooyen, Godlee, Evans, Black, & Smith, 1999) principally, because of its recent inception. It would be logical to think that openness would lead more moral behavior.…”

Evaluation bias against work in progress: evidence from a Spanish marketing conference

“…Garfunkel et al 1994;Mahoney et al 1978) and some studies detect that bias is moderated by the national or foreign character of the researcher (Gordon 1980;Link 1998); (2) bias toward prolific authors or senior authors with more previous articles, where some studies find such bias (e.g. Fisher et al 1994;Mahoney et al 1978;Tung 2006) but other studies find no effect (e.g. Madden and DeWitt 2006); (3) ''gender bias'', some studies find a gender effect with males rated higher (e.g.…”

“…Focusing of these author visibility aspects, we can say that in principle the double-blind peer review system should not be affected by author visibility as the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors. However, authors such as Fisher et al (1994) criticize this point as they find that senior authors with more published papers receive higher scores from ''blind'' reviewers than from ''non-blind'' reviewers, which they interpret to mean that ''blind'' reviewers (who cannot guess the identity of the author) could have recognized the higher quality work of authors with more previous publications (Snodgrass 2006). Similarly, Blank (1991) finds that almost half of ''blind'' reviewers divulge that they know the identity of the authors, which shows that no revision system can be considered completely anonymous.…”

“…Another widespread research trend (e.g. Blank 1991;Fisher et al 1994) compares the single-blind review process, in which the reviewer has information on the authors but the authors do not know who the reviewer is, with the double-blind review process, in which neither the authors nor the reviewers have information on each other.…”

Fostering a Culture of Support in Mental Health Settings: Alternatives to Traditional Models of Clinical Supervision

“…However, this is contingent upon respectful, encouraging, relationships with peers that recognise equality and individuality whilst providing assistance, guidance, and recognition, potentially decreasing uncertainty and insecurity in the environment (Vuorinen et al, 2000). Peer review in other disciplines and in professional journals is a common practice and in these contexts, conflict of interests can be problematic including philosophical bias, professional jealousies, competition, financial considerations, fanaticism, and political and research commitment (Fisher, Friedman, & Strauss, 1994;Horrobin, 1999). Whilst such discussions usually relate to journals, we posit that the same arguments can be applied to learning communities and CS in general and thus safeguards should be in place to prevent or minimise these.…”