Peer review: single vs double blind

Peer review is the process of subjecting an author’s research to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, prior to presenting their work at a conference and/or publication in a journal. The main role of the peer review process is to reinforce the credibility of research by facilitating its’ evaluation and to improve…

Evaluating the Peer Review Process (Interview)

The peer review process plays an essential role in almost every academic conference. We’ve spoken about the peer review process on numerous occasions on our blog, but we wanted to get the opinion of someone who reviews abstracts on a regular basis. Scott Eacott has kindly given us insight on his thought about peer review….

Is Peer Review Productive?

Peer review is the evaluation of an abstract or paper by work by other people with a competence on the topic in the same field of research. It is usually either single-blind reviewed, double-blind reviewed or open reviewed. Every reviewer commits to provide timely and detailed feedback for authors. The main goal of peer reviewing is to increase the…

Should the conference committee thank reviewers?

The reviewing stage is fundamental to any conference. Without reviewing, there won’t be any good feedback loops, and without feedback loops, research communities cannot develop and improve. Reviewers are one of the hardest working groups of people behind the scenes at a conference, but do they get the recognition they deserve? More importantly, do they…

Benefits and drawbacks of single-blind peer review

In our recent posts, we have discussed both what’s involved in both double-blind peer review and open reviewing. The third, and so far most common, form of reviewing is the single-blind peer review. A single-blind peer review keeps the identity of the reviewer anonymous, but the authors name and affiliation are on the paper. Like the other forms…

Benefits and drawbacks of double-blind peer review

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. Double-blind peer review is when the identity of both the author and reviewer is…

Is an Open Peer Review System the Way Forward?

The role of reviewing is to help the conference Chairs decide on whether to accept or reject papers or abstracts. Up to now, the most common forms of reviewing has been the single or double-blind review, where the authors don’t know who the reviewers are. However, the idea of using an open peer review system…

Teaching the Next Generation of Reviewers

Reviewers are a key component in a successful conference. Without a panel of reviewers willing to give up their time voluntarily, a conference would not be able to function. The best reviewers are the experts in a particular field with years of research under their belts. But where does the next generation of reviewers come from?…

Organiser Time Traps #2 – Peer Review

Picture the scene – you’re a conference chair/organiser and you’ve just closed off your call for papers. You’ve received 300 submissions, even more than you anticipated. You decided early on that each abstract would be reviewed by 3 people, so you have now 900 reviews to be carried out.  So how do you allocate 900…

Respecting your Reviewers

Following on from last week’s post on Guide to a Happy Chair at the Reviewing Process, this week we will look at the other side of the coin-the Reviewers. The reviewing stage happens after all abstract submissions are taken in. Reviewers are crucial to making a research project happen. The key to ensuring they are…