Double blind reviewing may serve as guidelines for the authors to improve their submission. But many researchers say that double blind review involves some high-profile experts who are 'gate-keepers' against low-quality papers; the problem is that reviewers may be biased, prejudiced and even sometimes uninformed. Many doubt their impartiality. Double-blind is a kind of 'black box'. Nobody is sure what is inside.
Double-blind review is the worst form of reviewing except all the others. New forms have some improvements on the double-blind one, with disadvantages of their own.
I always cite my own papers if possible, so they can guess its me! lol
Hello and greetings!!!
Double-blind peer review is not really blind. It is very easy to have an educated guess of who the author of a paper where the research was conducted for a very small and unexplored research areas. These authors because of their monopoly (so to say) in that area can make a self-citation from their previous work and in such cases it is easy to predict who the author is. An author would have to remove all self-references and their work in the abstract to ensure it is totally blind.
Well, I had many paper which were refused by reviewer. I am ok with that actually because I really understand and they help me to advance my knowledge. You should not be sad for that. After all, the purpose of scientific research is to find solutions to world problems. I rather my paper to be rejected so I won't introduce wrong scientific results to people. However, reviewers can do mistakes and can make wrong decisions. You can send your paper to other journal if you are sure of your work.
Winston Churchill: “Democrasy is a very bad way of governing. But, nothing better exists”. Not world by world citation but cirrect meaning. Double blind reviewing has a number of drawbacks, but otherwise we will be flooded by low quality scientific information. On the other hand, current reviewing system prevents access of revolution ideas to the sosiety.
Double blind peer reviews have some merits, but there are also a couple of fundamental issues:
(*) As Temitayo O. Olaniyan has written above, the process very often is not double blind.
(*) Editors have a viable interest to get papers rejected in order to keep the acceptance rate low.
(*) Editors publish their own papers or those of their buddies.
(*) Reviewers lack the knowledge or are simply rude. Quite often they do not understand the methodology. This makes a lot of sense if you consider that authors spend a considerable amount of time writing the paper and reviewers usually read it within a couple of hours (if they read it in the first place).
(*) Reviewers often are PhD students and junior faculty who lack experience.
(*) If you submit to a special issue or conference you are often asked to review for the same track. In other words, you increase your own likelihood of getting accepted by rejecting papers from others.
And the list goes on...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers