Some journals get their research reviewed after hiding the names of the authors. What is your preference and why? What is the fair review process: blind or open
It is always necessary to get a blinded review .i.e., the reviewers should be blind to the information about the origin of the manuscript. There are multiple possibilities for a bias in the review process if the reviewers know the details of the authors. They might be seither less or more attentive based on the standards and reputation of the university or the authors in the research community. Sometimes the reviewers will avoid a genuine opinion or fail to reject, if the authors were a big shot. All these can be avoided when the reviewers are blind to the source of the manuscript.
Open review helps the reviewer to some extend to follow up on previous work by the group. This helps the reviewers than the authors. This factor does not affect the authors at large unless there is a specific bias between groups. There is a balance when you collect 3-5 reviews. All of them will not be biased. Journals do add reviews when the inflow of review is negative. Editors with specialization develop a balance with additional comments. Given the scope, mode (online), volume and speed of communications in recent times, this is not a significant factor in my experience.
I definitely do prefer blind review process even though it might not guarantee a fair process on every every single manuscript, it will surely also not hurt the process too.
It is always necessary to get a blinded review .i.e., the reviewers should be blind to the information about the origin of the manuscript. There are multiple possibilities for a bias in the review process if the reviewers know the details of the authors. They might be seither less or more attentive based on the standards and reputation of the university or the authors in the research community. Sometimes the reviewers will avoid a genuine opinion or fail to reject, if the authors were a big shot. All these can be avoided when the reviewers are blind to the source of the manuscript.
I also prefer blind review process. The manuscripts are usually send/assigned to reviewers who work in the same/similar field as the authors do. They may already know each other very well. For different reasons, some may be good friends. Some may dislike each other. While some might have worked together (collaboration; professor-postdoc relation) before, some may compete each other. The bias will be always there if the reviewers know the details of the authors or which lab produce this manuscript.
I can dream. As reviewer, i prefer to know who want to publish an article to verify if this work or a part of it, is not already published by this same team, sometime authors are not so fair but i never put in consideration authors reputation. up to me, it would be better if reviewer have the name author access and also accept the publication of their critics with their name. that's the main fair process. as author, i want to know who has reviewed my article (to verify if no conflict of interest exist), and as reviewer, i want to have my critic published (to reinforce serious reviewing).
Hi,
depending to attitude of the referees or even authors it might be different but I personally prefer blind review.
My vote goes with blind review.. so as to avoid biasness or outcome of the review process.. firstly, reviewer and author may know each other for good reason or bad reason, and secondly, origin of work may affect the reviewing...
Of course, blind review is the best option. In that case there is much more chance that refers evaluate only quality of the manuscript, but not author origin. However. there is also other option like in Frontiers: both authors and referees names are open. in this case one can expect fair review!
Like Veera mentioned above, "Sometimes the reviewers will avoid genuine opinion, or fail to reject, if they found out the author is a big-shot in the field." An analogy example is here at ResearchGate: we are the reviewers and authors are those who post their answers. I believe that many people will have the same feeling that they are reluctant/hesitate or at least 'think twice or even three times' before downvote a researcher whose Impact Factor points was seen tallied over 1000 in his/her profile, if the researcher's answer is not too far off the track.
I think blind review process is better than open. Open review could be influenced by who are the authors and where they are working. Some researcher don't believe in the work generated in places like mexico.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry