A double-blind peer review means that both authors and reviewers do not have access to identities and affiliations of each other. In the single-blind case, the reputation of authors MAY affect the comments of referees, or it may be a source of probable conflict of interest.
My experience in reviewing more than 170 manuscripts for more than 53 journals in the field of mechanics, physics, and mathematics unfortunately says that most journals in my field are sending the manuscripts to the reviewers including the names and affiliations of authors inside the file.
Please don't mention that the referees need to know the identity of authors to find possible overlaps with their previous publications. Please share your answers after my question. Maybe we can send a clear message to journals in our field to change their unfair procedure.
If by "double blinded" you mean that reviewers do not know the author and the author does not know the reviewers, that is the standard procedure for most journals. If you are working with a journal that does identify the authors to the reviewers, and you do not like that system, then I suggest that you submit elsewhere.
Jafar - you may need to elaborate on what you mean here. 'double-blind' - as say in experimental studies - suggests, to me, a process whereby one reviewer doesn't know the other reviewer - but that is standard process.
Based on my experience, at least in Business/Management, double-blind is considered a standard approach. Single-blind is rather an exception which is probably part of tradition which was set up when the journal was established. Moreover, in some journals, even the AEs don't know the authors' identity (but it's rare). But, again, almost no journal uses a single-blind system. If it does and you don't agree with it, just send your manuscript elsewhere.
Alexander, it is amazing and excellent that even the AE doesn't know the authors!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publications