Double-blind peer review a double risk

Double-blind peer review.

Since Nature Nanotechnology launched in October 2006, our approach to peer review has been the same. We, like most science journals, use ‘single-blind’ peer review: that is, the referees of a paper know who the authors are but the authors don’t know who the referees are. We are now making a change to this process and will offer ‘doubleblind’ peer review — in which referees review a paper withou...

Double Blind Peer-Review in Games

Pre-publication peer-review forms the basis for how scholarly journals assess whether an article is suitable for publication. It is of paramount importance that the process is seen to be fair, robust and free of bias. One of the key methods for achieving these goals is blinding. Up until now, Games has used single blind peer-review, where the reviewer identities are not known to authors. This a...

Double Blind Peer-Review in Humanities

Pre-publication peer-review forms the basis of how scholarly journals assess whether an article is suitable for publication. It is of paramount importance that the process is perceived to be fair, robust, and free of bias. One of the key methods for achieving this goals is using a blind-reviewing method. Up until now, Humanities has used a single blind peer-review approach, where the reviewer i...

Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review

Peer review may be "single-blind," in which reviewers are aware of the names and affiliations of paper authors, or "double-blind," in which this information is hidden. Noting that computer science research often appears first or exclusively in peer-reviewed conferences rather than journals, we study these two reviewing models in the context of the 10th Association for Computing Machinery Intern...

Moving to the Double-Blind Review System