Case for the double-blind peer review

07/04/2018
by   Lucie Tvrznikova, et al.
0

Peer review is a process designed to produce a fair assessment of research quality prior to publication of scholarly work in a journal. Demographics, nepotism, and seniority have been all shown to affect reviewer behavior suggesting the most common, single-blind review method (or the less common open review method) might be biased. A survey of current research suggests that double-blind review offers a solution to many biases stemming from author's gender, seniority, or location without imposing any major downsides.

READ FULL TEXT

page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4

research
01/07/2021

Does double-blind peer-review reduce bias? Evidence from a top computer science conference

Peer review is widely regarded as essential for advancing scientific res...
research
11/14/2022

Cracking Double-Blind Review: Authorship Attribution with Deep Learning

Double-blind peer review is considered a pillar of academic research bec...
research
12/31/2019

On Testing for Biases in Peer Review

We consider the issue of biases in scholarly research, specifically, in ...
research
06/01/2021

Some Ethical Issues in the Review Process of Machine Learning Conferences

Recent successes in the Machine Learning community have led to a steep i...
research
11/07/2022

Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approach

Double-blind peer review mechanism has become the skeleton of academic r...
research
05/24/2006

Mapping the Bid Behavior of Conference Referees

The peer-review process, in its present form, has been repeatedly critic...
research
06/22/2017

A Community's Perspective on the Status and Future of Peer Review in Software Engineering

Context: Pre-publication peer review of scientific articles is considere...

Please sign up or login with your details

Forgot password? Click here to reset