The editors at scientific journal Nature have reportedly rejected the adoption of double-blind review. According to the journal's editors, there is a 'lack of evidence that double-anonymity is beneficial.'
There has been increasing criticism on the effectiveness and integrity of the existing single-blind peer review system. Under this system, reviewers who are selected on the basis of their expertise in a particular subject are aware of who the paper's authors are as well as their affiliations. Authors, however, are not told the identity of their reviewers. Under the double-blind system, the reviewer is also not given the authors' identity.
There have been claims that knowledge of authors' identity - including gender, nationality, institutional affiliations and experience levels - creates a bias in the mind of the reviewer. Women, early-career scientists and people with 'foreign' names have expressed fears that they do not get a fair chance under the single-blind peer review system.
Nature's editors are basing their claim on a 2008 survey commissioned by the Publishing Research Consortium, according to which double-blind is not an improvement over single-blind review. Also, the survey found, double-blind peer review is not always double-blind in effect, since reviewers can often make out the identity of the submitting authors. According to industry observers, to eliminate this problem, journals will need to create a system wherein information is more effectively masked. This calls for a substantial investment of time and resources. The universal adoption of electronic submission may be effective in hiding author identities and affiliations. Prohibiting self-citation can also be enforced to eliminate this problem.
More News in this Theme
