Single-blind review versus double-blind review.
- is double-blind always better than single-blind review?
In my opinion double-blind review is more objective since you received two opinions
Dear Quan Hoang Nguyen ,
Given that the main application of the two models is in minimizing or eliminating reviewer bias, here is a paper discussing this: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/114/48/12708.full.pdf
It may also be worth considering 'triple blind review' and 'open peer review' in the discussion.
Nyawira Mwangi, thanks for sharing. What's about your opinion(s)?
Quan Hoang Nguyen
In double blind review, the identification data of both the author and the reviewer is hidden and therefore I agree with Marianne Levon Shahsuvaryan that it may be more objective. However often times the bias exists not against individuals but against (or in favor of) certain nationalities, minorities, institutions, women, etc. The text may still give subtle clues to this information (even where the identification data is hidden). Thus double blind review also has limitations.
My take is that irrespective of the model of review, the authors, reviewers and editors need to be aware of their own conscious and unconscious bias.
They also need to identify any conflicts of interest.
Theoretically, double-blind review is more advantageous than single-blind review, regarding the elimination of possible bias, as others have already mentioned. However, there are cases in which ''Double-blind peer review is not really blind'' as dear Temitayo O. Olaniyan rightly pointed out. In any case, the responsible editors should take the proper measures to ensure, to the greatest possible extent, that author/s will remain anonymous for the peer review of their manuscripts.
The most important thing in both of them is that reviewers aren't really ''blind'' - I mean that they are reading your manuscript with attention and with very objective lens.
Also, you may take a look at the relevant link below.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_think_double-blind_review_is_better_than_regular_review_in_journals
The reviewer will be "blind" - without any information about the author and his/her afilliation to make a really objective evaluation
Once papers are allocated to reviewers, single-blind reviewers are significantly more likely than their double-blind counterparts to recommend for acceptance papers from famous authors, top universities, and top companies
What do you think about conferences with single-blind? compared with double-blind ones?
The quality depends on how it is applied. Corrupt people find certain ways to bypass the double-bind review process.
Single blind review is not enough. Double blind review is best!
Double-blind peer review means the identity of both the author and reviewer is kept hidden. If the authors’ identity is unknown to the reviewer, it will prevent the reviewer from forming any bias. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with double-blind reviewing. As Quan mentioned the corruption can change the game rules any how. The most common problem in reviewing when the author knows one of the associate editor, and by contacting them they can make the process very smooth any way.
Please follow link the below to have some relevant information.
Article Moving to the Double-Blind Review System
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology
- Research Papers