Single Blind Advantages

1. Peer Review, What to Do? References Bingham, C. (2000). Peer review and the ethics of internet publishing. In:  Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press Budden, A.E. et al. (2007). Couble-blind review favoursincreasedrepresentation of femaleauthors. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 32, 1, 4-6. Duncan, E.A.S. (2007). Peer review: it’s time for more openness. British Journal of Ocupational Therapy, 70, 1, 43-45. Editorial (2008). Working double-blind. Nature,451, 605-606. Korona, T., (2013). http://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_single_blind_reviews Webb,T.J. et al. (2008). Does double-blind review benefit female authors? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23, 351–353. Madeline Mol, OdileRidderinkhof, Ruben van Beek General Problems • In all different versions of peer review, there are a few general problems one has to deal with. One of these is confirmation bias, which could influence whether or not a paper is accepted. Another one is publication bias, which causes null findings to remain unpublished. Within the scientific community, there is no consensus on the ideal peer review strategy. Also, there is no rectification system if a single study in a paper turns out to be invalid. • Double Blind • Advantages • The reviewer and author do not know each other’s identity. This way both are not biased by the other’s reputation. Also, this prevents them from having personal or scientific vendettas. Minorities have an 8% increase in publications (Budden et al., 2007). • Disadvantages • The reviewer can often find out who the author is when he’s an expert in the field (Editorial, 2008). To completely blind a paper is a lot of work. Moreover, the editor in chief has a lot of power and can function as a ‘gatekeeper’, as he gets to assign authors to reviewers.However, otherresearchersfindthere is no relativeincrease in publicationsbyfemales(Webb et al. 2008). • Double Open • Advantages • Critique that is given by the author is often more constructive and nuanced, as the author knows who the reviewer is. This makes the reviewing process more transparent and increases credit(Duncan, 2007). Also, ethical accountability is increased. • Disadvantages • Because authors are able to track down the reviewer, reviewers might be tempted to give them critique that is muffled, in order to not offend the author. Also, reputation effects may come into play again. Furthermore, authors and reviewers could get into fights about a reviewer vetoing an article. Influential scientists could also decline reviewing. • Single Blind • Advantages • A reviewer can assess earlier publications of the author and thus his reputation. Besides, double blind is actually single blind in practice as the reviewer is often able to discover who the author is. In single blind review, the author is aware of this (Korona, 2013). • Disadvantages • The reviewer knows who he is reviewing, reputation comes into play and may bias the review. If an author is well-known and has a good reputation, it may be harder for a reviewer to reject the article. The reviewer could abuse the information as well (Bingham, 2000). Also, the author is in the dark about who is reviewing him, and therefore unable to evaluate the reviewer’s capacities. Conclusion Since we are all human, and the peer review system is an entirely human enterprise, the role of human factors is unavoidable in peer review. Every approach has its own ways of trying to deal with these human factors, but none of them is infallible. At this moment, we don’t think there is an ultimate solution, but being aware of the pitfalls in the peer review process is a step in the right direction. We would also like to recommend more consensus and clarity on which peer review strategies are used by whom and why.