scholarly journals How Blind is Double Blind Review?

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 328-338
Author(s):  
cem eyerci
Keyword(s):  
Faculty Member ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Considerable Extent ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Institutional Affiliation ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Political Sciences ◽  
Grant Applications

The peer-review system as a critical tool in academic processes is regarded to be essential. It is not used only to evaluate the manuscripts submitted to the journals but also in tenure decisions, academic promotions, and grant applications. However, during the last few decades, the system has also become a subject of academic research and criticized from various aspects. Many scholars studied the process and presented biases emerging due to the characteristics of the authors and reviewers. In this paper, the journals published by the faculties of economics and administrative sciences and the faculties of political sciences and indexed by TR Dizin are studied. It is observed that the language of the article, number, title, gender, and institutional affiliation of the authors do not influence the acceptance period. However, there is a difference between the average acceptance periods of the journals, which are quite similar. Moreover, being a faculty member of the publisher provides a significantly shorter acceptance period on average. The reason for such differentiation may be either the existence of a considerable extent of bias at the editorial stages of the process or the communication of the editors with the reviewers in a way that influences the process.

scholarly journals Moving to the Double-Blind Review System

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 158-159
Author(s):  
Paul De Boeck
Keyword(s):  
Review System ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review

A different method of teaching peer review systems.

1998 ◽  
Vol 274 (6) ◽  
pp. S57 ◽  
Author(s):  
J T Lightfoot
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Knowledge Bases ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Review System ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Open Review ◽  
Single Blind ◽  
A Current

Students often have difficulty grasping the advantages of the various peer review systems used in scientific publishing. In the described exercise, students are assigned a current study and then write three two-page critiques of the article. The three critiques occur at different times in the semester, and thus the students have differing knowledge bases. The critiques are then assigned to other students for peer review using the double-blind, single-blind, or open review systems. After the submission of each peer review, the class discusses the various advantages and disadvantages of each peer review system. In addition to experiencing peer review, in using this method students also gain an appreciation for the difficulty of judging the merit of a peer's work.

"They Must Be Analyzed". The Theory’s Empire and the Challenge of the Transcultural Humanities

Tekstualia ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (35) ◽  
pp. 115-122
Author(s):  
Ewa Łukaszyk
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Active Participation ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Production Of Knowledge ◽  
Global Problem ◽  
The World ◽  
New Form

Analytic practices in the humanities have been gradually transformed into a new form of symbolic oppression. Open access download and indiscriminate consumption do not automatically imply an equal active participation in the debate. Apparently, the „democratic” rules and procedures behind the production of knowledge, such as a double-blind peer-review system, are not as innocent as they seem. Andrzej Walicki has pointed out that Polish scholars may have to face continuing hindrances, which should be interpreted not only as a result of their personal insuffi ciency, but as an epiphenomenon of a global problem: they remain in the shadow of the Theory’s Empire. The necessity of creating new networks of exchange is thus evident, and so is the task of rethinking the concept of „the world” in order to guarantee participation and visibility.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2104 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Review System ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Contact Person ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Content Review ◽  
Single Blind

All conference organizers/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) The SNPF 2021 article review process was carried out using a single-blind review system. The number of papers submitted was 84 articles. The number of SNPF 2021 reviewers is 14 people. One reviewer reviewed one article. The review process was done via email and or OCS. The article review results were returned to the authors for revision within a certain period of time. The author sent the revised results, and the plagiarism checked results of the article. The editor then rechecked the revision result. If suitable, it would be forwarded to the editor, either for plagiarism, language, or template. • Conference submission management system: OCS (http://snpfmotogpe.ulm.ac.id/ocs/index.php/snpf/2021) • The number of submissions received: There were 84 articles submitted to SNPF 2021 • The number of submissions sent for review: There were 84 articles reviewed by reviewers of SNPF 2021. • The number of submissions accepted: There were 40 articles accepted for recommendation/publication to JPCS IOP Publishing. • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 47,61% • The average number of reviews per paper: One article was reviewed four times: content review 2x, language review 1x, and template review 1x. • The total number of reviewers involved: There were 14 reviewers (content review), 10 editors (content and template review), and 4 people (language review) • Any additional info on the review process: The author sent the revised article along with the similarity check (maximum 20%). A similarity check was also carried out using Turnitin (maximum 20%) when an article was declared fit for publication. So, the similarity check was done two times. • Contact person for queries: +628975586104 (Misbah) Universitas Lambung Mangkurat [email protected]

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2106 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Review System ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Contact Person ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind

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) The ICMSS 2021 article review process was carried out using a single-blind review system. One reviewer reviewed 1 article. The number of papers submitted was 52 articles. The number of ICMSS 2021 reviewers is 8 people. 1 article reviewed by 1 reviewer. The review process is done via email and or OCS. The results of the review of the article are returned to the author for revision within a certain period of time. The author sends the revised results and the plagiarism check results of the article. The editor then rechecks the revision result. If it is suitable, it will be forwarded to the editor, whether it is checked for plagiarism, language, or template. • Conference submission management system: OCS (https://conference.ulm.ac.id/index.php/icmss/icmss/) • Number of submissions received: There are 50 articles submitted to ICMSS 2021 • Number of submissions sent for review: There are 50 articles reviewed by reviewers ICMSS 2021. • Number of submissions accepted: 31 articles were accepted for recommendation/publication to JPCS IOP Publishing. • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 62% • Average number of reviews per paper: One article was reviewed 4 times, reviewed content twice, reviews related to language 1x, and review template 1x. • Total number of reviewers involved: There are 8 reviewers (review content), There are 5 editors (review content and templates), and 6 people (review language) • Any additional info on review process: The author sends the revised article along with the similarity check (maximum 20%). When an article is declared fit for publication, a similarity check is also carried out using Turnitin (maximum 20%). So, the similarity check is done 2 times. • Contact person for queries: +628975586104 (Misbah) [email protected] Universitas Lambung Mangkurat

scholarly journals The Pioneering Role of Sci in Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmad Yaman Abdin ◽  
Muhmmad Jawad Nasim ◽  
Yannick Ney ◽  
Claus Jacob
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Discovery ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Single Blind

Scientists observe, discover, justify and eventually share their findings with the scientific community. Dissemination is an integral aspect of scientific discovery since discoveries which go unnoticed have no or little impact on science. Today, peer-review is part of this process of scientific dissemination as it contributes proactively to the quality of a scientific article. As the numbers of scientific journals and scientific articles published therein are increasing steady, processes such as the single-blind or double-blind peer review are facing a near collapse situation. In fact, these traditional forms of reviewing have reached their limits and, because of this, are also increasingly considered as unfair, sloppy, superficial and even biased. In this manuscript we propose forms of Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R) as valuable alternatives to the traditional blind peer review system. We describe how the journal Sci has explored such an approach and provide first empirical evidence of the benefits and also challenges such a P4R approach is facing.

scholarly journals DIY peer review and monograph publishing in the arts and humanities

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 477-493 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorothy Butchard ◽  
Simon Peter Rowberry ◽  
Claire Squires
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Science And Technology Studies ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Review System ◽  
Linear Processes ◽  
Arts And Humanities ◽  
The Arts ◽  
Grant Applications ◽  
The Social

In order to explore monograph peer review in the arts and humanities, this article introduces and discusses an applied example, examining the route to publication of Danielle Fuller and DeNel Rehberg Sedo’s Reading Beyond the Book: The Social Practices of Contemporary Literary Culture (2013). The book’s co-authors supplemented the traditional ‘blind’ peer-review system with a range of practices including the informal, DIY review of colleagues and ‘clever friends’, as well as using the feedback derived from grant applications, journal articles and book chapters. The article ‘explodes’ the book into a series of documents and non-linear processes to demonstrate the significance of the various forms of feedback to the development of Fuller and Rehberg Sedo’s monograph. The analysis reveals substantial differences between book and article peer-review processes, including an emphasis on marketing in review forms and the pressures to publish, which the co-authors navigated through the introduction of ‘clever friends’ to the review processes. These findings, drawing on science and technology studies, demonstrate how such a research methodology can identify how knowledge is constructed in the arts and humanities and potential implications for the valuation of research processes and collaborations.

scholarly journals The Pioneering Role of Sci in Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R)

Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 13
Author(s):  
Ahmad Yaman Abdin ◽  
Muhammad Jawad Nasim ◽  
Yannick Ney ◽  
Claus Jacob
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Discovery ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Single Blind

Scientists observe, discover, justify and eventually share their findings with the scientific community. Dissemination is an integral aspect of scientific discovery, since discoveries which go unnoticed have no or little impact on science. Today, peer review is part of this process of scientific dissemination as it contributes proactively to the quality of a scientific article. As the numbers of scientific journals and scientific articles published therein are increasing steadily, processes such as the single-blind or double-blind peer review are facing a near collapse situation. In fact, these traditional forms of reviewing have reached their limits and, because of this, are also increasingly considered as unfair, sloppy, superficial and even biased. In this manuscript, we propose forms of post-publication public peer review (P4R) as valuable alternatives to the traditional blind peer review system. We describe how the journal Sci has explored such an approach and provide first empirical evidence of the benefits and also challenges, such a P4R approach faces.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document