Peer reviewing is used in conferences around the world. There are three types of reviewing commonly carried out in a conference setting; open reviewing, single-blind peer review and double-blind.
In this post, we will discuss the elements of double-blind peer review.
The first thing to mention is that double-blind peer review is anonymous reviewing. The shift reflects a broader effort to standardise and clarify the language used in academic peer review processes. The term double-blind can be confusing to people unfamiliar with peer review conventions. It suggests a focus on the number of “blinds” rather than the process itself. Anonymous reviewing is more straightforward in conveying that both the author and the reviewer are anonymous to each other.
The word blind is seen as problematic from a disability-inclusivity perspective, as it metaphorically refers to a lack of sight. Some institutions and communities are striving to move away from language that might unintentionally reinforce negative connotations about disabilities.
The term anonymous reviewing is simpler and clearer, aligning with trends in various disciplines to streamline terminology for easier communication and comprehension. It directly communicates the idea that anonymity is key to the review process, without the need to specify “double” or “single.”
In short, “anonymous reviewing” is a more inclusive, transparent, and easily understandable term that directly describes the core feature of the process—anonymity for both the reviewer and the author.
Definition of double-blind peer review
Double-blind peer review means the identity of both the author and reviewer is kept hidden. If the authors’ identity is unknown to the reviewer, it will prevent the reviewer from forming any bias. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with double-blind reviewing – here are some of the more common ones.
Advantages of double-blind review
In a study carried out by the Publishing Research Consortium (PRC), it was found that out of 3,000 academics asked, 71% said they have confidence in double-blind peer review, while 56% prefer it over any other form of reviewing. The fact that the people writing and reviewing papers are in favour of double-blind peer review is positive.
Since the reviewer does not know who wrote the abstract, they cannot be influenced by their standing. Either within a research community or even gender. Sometimes it can be difficult to write a bad review (even if justified). Particularly on someone who is well-known within a particular sector. By having a double-blind review, it eliminated this happening.
It is no secret that gender bias still remains in reviewing. An experiment was carried out by Trends in Ecology and Evolution on the Behavioural Ecology journal over two periods – 1997 to 2000 (when single-blind was used), and 2002-2005 (when double-blind was implemented). It was found that there was a 7.9% increase in the amount of papers published by female first authors when double-blind reviewing was introduced. This figure is hugely significant, and only heightens the importance of double-blind peer review. Let’s look a little more closely at the key advantages:
3 Key Advantages
Reduction of Bias: By concealing identities, double-blind review minimizes potential biases related to an author’s reputation, institutional affiliation, gender, or nationality. This ensures that the work is judged purely on its merit.
Encouragement for Early-Career Researchers: Anonymity can level the playing field for early-career researchers or those from less-renowned institutions. As their work is evaluated without preconceived notions.
Promotion of Objective Critique: Reviewers may feel more comfortable providing honest and constructive feedback when they are unaware of the author’s identity. This leads to a more rigorous evaluation process.
Disadvantages of double-blind review
The biggest argument is that double-blind peer reviewing is not really blind after all. When research sectors are small, it is easy to have an educated guess of who the author is. When an author is trying to make a point in their research, they may self-reference from previous work they have written. In some cases it is becomes obvious who the author is. To ensure it is totally blind, an author would have to remove all references to themselves and their work in the abstract. Which could ruin the research of the paper.
Like all the reviewing types, there are benefits and drawbacks to double-blind peer review. The jury is still out on whether it will surpass the most common form (single-blind) in the near future, but it is heading in the right direction. We have also analysed whether open reviewing is the way forward here. Let’s look a little more closely at the key advantages:
3 Key Advantages
Difficulty in Maintaining Anonymity: In specialised fields, it can be challenging to fully anonymise a manuscript. Authors’ unique writing styles, specific methodologies, or self-citations can inadvertently reveal their identities to knowledgeable reviewers.
Administrative Complexity: Implementing a double-blind system requires meticulous handling of manuscripts to ensure anonymity, increasing the administrative burden on editorial staff.
Potential for Reviewer Misconduct: Anonymity might lead some reviewers to provide overly harsh or unconstructive criticism, knowing their identity is protected. Additionally, without knowledge of the authors, reviewers might miss conflicts of interest or fail to recognise instances of self-plagiarism.=
The importance of a user-friendly workspace for reviewers
If you’re asking your reviewers to use peer review software that’s confusing or frustrating, you won’t get the best from them. So make sure you use user-friendly peer review software like Ex Ordo.
Conclusion
Double-blind peer review strives to promote fairness and objectivity in scholarly evaluations. But it comes with its own set of challenges. Ensuring complete anonymity can be difficult, and the administrative demands of the process can be significant. As academia explores the most effective approaches to peer evaluation, balancing the advantages of minimizing bias with the practical hurdles of implementation remains essential. Continuous research and open discussion are key to improving peer review systems and preserving the integrity of academic publishing.