Double-blind vs. single-blind peer review

(Gina Helfrich) #1

From the NYU Center for Data Science newsletter:

"Single-blind vs. double-blind peer review is getting attention. From the authors’ perspective, “only one in eight authors actually chose to have their reviewers blinded when given the option.” A new paper on the arXiv (authors: Claire Le Goues, Yuriy Brun, Sven Apel, Emery Berger, Sarfraz Khurshid, Yannis Smaragdakis) suggests that double-blind reviewing does work. 74%-90% of reviewers could not guess the author of the blinded papers they reviewed. Further, all program committee chairs in the study “were strongly supportive of continuing to use doubleblind review in the future. All felt that double-blind review mitigated effects of (subconscious) bias.”

(Disha Umarwani) #2

I personally feel making double-blind peer review a standard is a good choice. It would definitely not reduce the number of paper submission. There are times when people find it hard to accept that anything like unconscious bias exist and they do not have one definitely. Bias can be based on anything gender or nationality. And if we are giving something out to a community of intellectuals it should be free from bias. Removing bias even after making people realize they have one is also not a guaranteed way. So, the best would be to set a standard that reduces the chances of identification to a large extent.