The double-blind revision process is a mechanism that in my opinion should be taken into consideration by scientific journals since many times papers are accepted in high impact factor journals not really for the good quality of the work but for the good reputation of the last name. Why does this continue to happen?
Giulio,
Depends - what do you mean exactly. I take it that you mean review process - rather than the revision process (as they are both different things)? By double-blind - do you mean one reviewer does not know who the other is (as that is usually the case)? Or do you mean that the author/s do not know who the reviewer is and vice versa (again that is usually the case). Or do you mean that the editor doesn't know who the author/s and/or the reviewers are? I'm trying to 'read between the lines' here - and so I suspect this latter scenario whereby if an editor knows the authors (or their reputation) they may accept on that alone and/or oppose the reviewers comments. That may happen - but I would imagine that such circumstances are few and far between. If you double-blinded with the editor - who would make the 'executive' decision then - the administrators? I'm not sure that many publishing companies would support that option over existing arrangements.
As noted by Noah Snyder (http://academia.stackexchange.com/a/8898), in the hard sciences one reason for NOT using the double-blind peer review is that the authors very often post the preprint versions of the submiitted papers on the internet (e.g. on arXiv.org), and so the referee can easily establish the authors' identity by running a search by, say, the title of the paper.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Microbiology
- Scientific Research