In the space of a few days, Nature's Editorial on double-blind peer review (Nature 451, 605–606; doi:10.1038/451605b 2008) had gathered almost 50 comments on the Peer-to-Peer blog at http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2008/02/working_doubleblind.html#comments.
The Editorial concluded that double-blind peer review (in which both authors and reviewers are anonymous) is unlikely to be used at Nature, but asked readers for their views. In a torrent of comments, a theme emerged among self-defined junior researchers that the current single-blind system is biased against them in favour of established investigators.
But “Bob O'H” performed a model calculation that suggests that double-blind review merely shifts the bias so that “the very famous” actually do better, as do “the very obscure”; the scientists who lose out are the ones in the middle. Another view expressed is that in journals with high rejection rates, reviews are of lower quality.
Would double-blinding affect review quality? Or would it result in more scientists declining to review for journals? Your comments are welcome!
Additional information
Visit Nautilus for regular news relevant to Nature authors → http://blogs.nature.com/nautilus and see Peer-to-Peer for news for peer reviewers and about peer review → http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer .
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
From the blogosphere. Nature 451, xvi (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/7181xvic
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/7181xvic