Life in the Fast Lane: Blinding in the Digital Age

2013 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 738-741
Author(s):  
Joshua T. Hertel ◽  
Tami S. Martin
Keyword(s):  
Mathematics Education ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Editorial Staff ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
History Of ◽  
Open Review ◽  
Single Blind ◽  
Looking Back ◽  
Fast Lane

The November 2013 issue of JRME marks the end to the 44th volume. Looking back on the history of the journal, many things have changed since the first issue was published in January 1970. In particular, the process through which manuscripts are submitted, reviewed, and published has changed greatly. Gone are the days of mailed manuscripts and reviews. As the journal has matured with the field of mathematics education, the standards and expectations for both manuscripts and reviews have also evolved. These standards and expectations are to a great extent influenced by the peer-review process and are thereby linked to the practice of blinding. When submitting a manuscript to JRME, authors must submit both a blinded and an unblinded version. The blinded version is sent to reviewers, and the unblinded version is used by the editorial staff. Although other journals use a single-blind process (reviewers are aware of the identities of the authors) or an open review process (both parties are aware of the others' identities), the JRME review process remains a double-blind process in which neither authors nor reviewers are aware of the others' identities.

scholarly journals Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer?

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth C Moylan ◽  
Simon Harold ◽  
Ciaran O’Neill ◽  
Maria K Kowalczuk
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Single Blind

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2022 ◽  
Vol 2148 (1) ◽  
pp. 011003
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Software Tool ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Technical Quality ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind ◽  
Initial Check

All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other (please describe) 1. ICPEM Editors perform an initial check of the manuscript’s suitability upon receipt, and use a software tool to finish the plagiarism analysis, manuscripts are out of conference topics will be rejected directly, generally, authors will receive the result within 3-5 working days in this round. 2. Only the manuscripts passed the initial checking can be submitted to reviewers, ICPEM Editorial Office will then organize the peer-review process performed by independent experts. Papers will be strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed by experts and reviewers. 3. All regular papers are reviewed by at least two reviewers, but usually by three or more, and rated considering: Relevance, Originality, Technical Quality, Significance and Presentation of the submissions; There are four results: 1, Accept; 2, Accept after Minor Revisions; 3, Reconsider after Major Revisions; 4, Reject. 4. Authors have 2-3 weeks to make minor or major revisions after received the comments from reviewers. Usually, one round of major revisions is allowed. 5. Only the submission passed the peer review and accepted by reviewers will be included in the conference proceeding finally. • Conference submission management system: Online Email System • Number of submissions received: 141 • Number of submissions sent for review: 116 (25 papers out of the conference scope are rejected directly) • Number of submissions accepted: 69 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 49% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2-3 • Total number of reviewers involved: 164 • Any additional info on review process: • Contact person for queries: Name : Josh Sheng Affiliation: Hubei Zhongke Research Institute of Nature Science, China Email : [email protected]

scholarly journals Peer review blinding practices of highly ranked dental journals: analysis and discussion

BDJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clovis Mariano Faggion Jr
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Lower Odds ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Single Blind

AbstractObjectives To evaluate the type of peer review blinding used in highly ranked dental journals and to discuss the influence of the blinding approaches on the peer review process.Methods All 91 dental journals classified by impact factor (IF) had their websites scrutinised for the type of peer review blinding used for submissions. If the information was not reported, the journals were contacted to obtain the information. Linear and logistic regression were applied to evaluate the association between type of peer review blinding and IF.Results The selected journals reported the following peer review blinding approaches: single-blind (N = 36, 39.6%), double-blind (N = 46, 50.5%), transparent (N = 2, 2.2%) and open (N = 1, 1.1%). Information from six (6.6%) journals was not available. A linear regression analysis demonstrated that journals with lower IFs were associated with double-blind review (p = 0.001). A logistic regression suggested lower odds of association between single-blind peer review and journals with IFs below a threshold of 2 (odds ratio 0.157, confidence interval 0.059 to 0.417, p <0.001).Conclusions The majority of highly ranked dental journals had single- and double-blind peer review; journals with higher IFs presented single-blind peer review and those with lower IFs reported double-blind peer review.

scholarly journals Peer Review Declaration Form Guidance

2021 ◽  
Vol 2101 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Staff Member ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Editorial Staff ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Related Field ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind ◽  
Submission Date

Abstract On the following page you will find the declaration form. • Please answer each question. • You should submit the form along with the rest of your submission files. • The deadline is the submission date written in your publishing agreement. All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. We will published the information you provide as part of your proceedings. All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other (please describe) Double-blind: both reviewers’ and authors’ identities remain anonymous. Each manuscript will be reviewed by at least 2-3 experts in related field: one editorial staff member as well as one to three external reviewers. The review process takes about 1-4 weeks. • Conference submission management system: Through our email system: [email protected], which is in charge by Terasa Lei. • Number of submissions received: 192 • Number of submissions sent for review: 151 (41 papers out of scope or plagiaristic were rejected directly after received) • Number of submissions accepted: 88 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 45.8% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2-3 • Total number of reviewers involved: 114 • Any additional info on review process: While receiving a new submission, we/our editors firstly check the scope of it whether suitable for our conference. If not, it will be rejected directly. If yes, it will be sent out to check plagiarism and then peer review. We choose 2 reviewers for each of the submission and after getting the two reviews, we conclude a final result for the paper. Once the two reviews show totally different attitudes, we will find another reviewer for it until we get the final result. • Contact person for queries: Name : Terasa Lei Affiliation: Hubei Zhongke Institute of Geology and Environment Technology Email : [email protected]

scholarly journals A Letter from the Editor-in-Chief

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan Kudish
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Biomedical Engineering ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Undergraduate Research ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Editorial Staff ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Research Journal ◽  
The World

It is my pleasure to introduce to you the first volume of the Columbia Undergraduate Research Journal, an interdisciplinary publication that serves as a platform for undergraduates from all over the world to display the fruits of their academic investigations. The diversity of our authors is matched only by that of their subject matters, which range anywhere from biomedical engineering to political science and astrophysics. One thing is certain: our organization is privileged to showcase the work of this incredible set of individuals. Before each research piece, you will find a concise commentary written by a member of our editorial staff that places the author’s arguments and findings in the context of ongoing conversations in his/her field and related disciplines in order to more effectively communicate the significance of the research to any passing reader. With this initial volume of our journal, we lead the battle against negative the stereotypes attached to undergraduate journalism by seeking to adopt the practices of premier research publications, emphasizing ethically sound review policies and overall professionalism in our interactions with our authors. As we launch our website, we look forward to initiating a double blind peer review process, and to making our content freely available through our open access interface. We are an organization dedicated to our brilliant contributors, our tireless editorial staff, and of course you, the reader, from whom the entire process and presentation of research derives its significance. Best regards, Bryan Kudisch, Editor-in-Chief

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 890 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Subject Area ◽  
Marine Science ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind

Abstract All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science has been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. The review processes were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind/Double-blind/Triple-blind/Open/Other (please describe) Double-blind: All papers came through the basic review which included an initial technical criteria check (paper field, structure of submission, adherence to the submission instructions, English language usage and the ethics of scientific writing including a check for the similarity rate). Any papers out of the scope or containing plagiarism were rejected directly. The initial technical criteria check by the editors. The accepted papers came through peer review process by two professional experts in the related subject area. After the peer review process was complete, the editors decide that the papers will be accepted for publication. • Conference submission management system: Email 2nd International Conference on Fisheries and Marine submission on https://unkhair.ac.id/ • Number of submissions received: 150 • Number of submissions sent for review: 88 • Number of submissions accepted: 73 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 48% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 35 • Any additional info on review process: • Contact person for queries: [email protected] Dr. Najamuddin Department of Marine Science, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Khairun University, Indonesia

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2112 (1) ◽  
pp. 011003
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Software Tool ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Technical Quality ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Single Blind ◽  
Initial Check

All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: Single-blind / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other (please describe) All reviews follow a double-blind process. 1-AOPR Editors perform an initial check of the manuscript’s suitability upon receipt, and use a software tool to finish the plagiarism analysis, manuscripts are out of conference topics will be rejected directly, generally, authors will receive the result within 3-5 working days in this round. 2-Only the manuscripts passed the initial checking can be submitted to reviewers, AOPR Editorial Office will then organize the peer-review process performed by independent experts. Papers will be strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed by experts and reviewers. 3-All regular papers are reviewed by at least two reviewers, but usually by three or more, and rated considering: Relevance, Originality, Technical Quality, Significance and Presentation of the submissions; There are four results: 1, Accept; 2, Accept after Minor Revisions; 3, Reconsider after Major Revisions; 4, Reject. 4-Authors have 2-3 weeks to make minor or major revisions after received the comments from reviewers. Usually, one round of major revisions is allowed. 5-Only the submission passed the peer review and accepted by reviewers will be included in the conference proceeding finally. • Conference submission management system: Online Email System • Number of submissions received: 75 • Number of submissions sent for review: 55 (20 papers out of the conference scope are rejected directly) • Number of submissions accepted: 28 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 37% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2-3 • Total number of reviewers involved: 64 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: • Contact person for queries: Josh Sheng [email protected] Please submit this form along with the rest of your files on the submission date written in your publishing agreement. The information you provide will be published as part of your proceedings.

scholarly journals Double-blind review in software engineering venues

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moritz Beller ◽  
Alberto Bacchelli
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Software Engineering ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Hidden Biases ◽  
Benefits And Costs ◽  
Single Blind

The peer review process is central to the scientific method, the advancement and spread of research, as well as crucial for individual careers. However, the single-blind review mode currently used in most Software Engineering (SE) venues is susceptible to apparent and hidden biases, since reviewers know the identity of authors. We perform a study on the benefits and costs that are associated with introducing double- blind review in SE venues. We surveyed the SE community’s opinion and interviewed experts on double-blind reviewing. Our results indicate that the costs, mostly logistic challenges and side effects, outnumber its benefits and mostly regard difficulty for authors in blinding papers, for reviewers in understanding the increment with respect to previous work from the same authors, and for organizers to manage a complex transition. While the surveyed community largely consents on the costs of DBR, only less than one-third disagree with a switch to DBR for SE journals, all SE conferences, and, in particular, ICSE; the analysis of a survey with authors of submitted papers at ICSE 2016 run by the program chairs of that edition corroborates our result.

scholarly journals Double blind reviews in software engineering venues: Practicability, promises and perils

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moritz Beller ◽  
Alberto Bacchelli
Keyword(s):  
Software Engineering ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Blind Reviews ◽  
Hidden Biases ◽  
Benefits And Costs ◽  
Single Blind

The peer review process is central to the scientific method, the advancement and spread of research as well as crucial for individual careers. However, the single blind review process currently used in most Software Engineering (SE) venues is susceptible towards apparent and hidden biases, since reviewers know the identity of authors. In this paper, we perform a study on the benefits and costs that are associated with introducing double-blind reviews in SE venues. We surveyed the SE community’s opinion, interviewed experts on double-blind reviewing, and estimated the likelihood of reviewers being able to guess the authors. Our results indicate that double-blind reviewing could be introduced in large SE conferences at lower-than-generally believed costs and that the majority of the SE community is in favor of introducing it.

scholarly journals Double-blind review in software engineering venues

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moritz Beller ◽  
Alberto Bacchelli
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Software Engineering ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Hidden Biases ◽  
Benefits And Costs ◽  
Single Blind

The peer review process is central to the scientific method, the advancement and spread of research, as well as crucial for individual careers. However, the single-blind review mode currently used in most Software Engineering (SE) venues is susceptible to apparent and hidden biases, since reviewers know the identity of authors. We perform a study on the benefits and costs that are associated with introducing double- blind review in SE venues. We surveyed the SE community’s opinion and interviewed experts on double-blind reviewing. Our results indicate that the costs, mostly logistic challenges and side effects, outnumber its benefits and mostly regard difficulty for authors in blinding papers, for reviewers in understanding the increment with respect to previous work from the same authors, and for organizers to manage a complex transition. While the surveyed community largely consents on the costs of DBR, only less than one-third disagree with a switch to DBR for SE journals, all SE conferences, and, in particular, ICSE; the analysis of a survey with authors of submitted papers at ICSE 2016 run by the program chairs of that edition corroborates our result.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document