Editorial: Single- versus double-blind reviewing

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This editorial analyzes from a variety of perspectives the controversial issue of single-blind versus double-blind reviewing. In single-blind reviewing, the reviewer is unknown to the author, but the identity of the author is known to the reviewer. Double-blind reviewing is more symmetric: The identity of the author and the reviewer are not revealed to each other. We first examine the significant scholarly literature regarding blind reviewing. We then list six benefits claimed for double-blind reviewing and 21 possible costs. To compare these benefits and costs, we propose a double-blind policy for TODS that attempts to minimize the costs while retaining the core benefit of fairness that double-blind reviewing provides, and evaluate that policy against each of the listed benefits and costs. Following that is a general discussion considering several questions: What does this have to do with TODS, does bias exist in computer science, and what is the appropriate decision procedure We explore the knobs a policy design can manipulate to fine-tune a double-blind review policy. This editorial ends with a specific decision.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number1
JournalACM Transactions on Database Systems
Volume32
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2007

Fingerprint

Costs
Knobs
Computer science

Keywords

  • Anonymous citation
  • Blinding efficacy
  • Double-blind review
  • Gender bias
  • Single-blind review
  • Status bias

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Information Systems
  • Computer Graphics and Computer-Aided Design
  • Software

Cite this

Editorial : Single- versus double-blind reviewing. / Snodgrass, Richard Thomas.

In: ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1, 01.03.2007.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{855e721c05bc477595f62da2369e656b,
title = "Editorial: Single- versus double-blind reviewing",
abstract = "This editorial analyzes from a variety of perspectives the controversial issue of single-blind versus double-blind reviewing. In single-blind reviewing, the reviewer is unknown to the author, but the identity of the author is known to the reviewer. Double-blind reviewing is more symmetric: The identity of the author and the reviewer are not revealed to each other. We first examine the significant scholarly literature regarding blind reviewing. We then list six benefits claimed for double-blind reviewing and 21 possible costs. To compare these benefits and costs, we propose a double-blind policy for TODS that attempts to minimize the costs while retaining the core benefit of fairness that double-blind reviewing provides, and evaluate that policy against each of the listed benefits and costs. Following that is a general discussion considering several questions: What does this have to do with TODS, does bias exist in computer science, and what is the appropriate decision procedure We explore the knobs a policy design can manipulate to fine-tune a double-blind review policy. This editorial ends with a specific decision.",
keywords = "Anonymous citation, Blinding efficacy, Double-blind review, Gender bias, Single-blind review, Status bias",
author = "Snodgrass, {Richard Thomas}",
year = "2007",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1145/1206049.1206050",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
journal = "ACM Transactions on Database Systems",
issn = "0362-5915",
publisher = "Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Editorial

T2 - Single- versus double-blind reviewing

AU - Snodgrass, Richard Thomas

PY - 2007/3/1

Y1 - 2007/3/1

N2 - This editorial analyzes from a variety of perspectives the controversial issue of single-blind versus double-blind reviewing. In single-blind reviewing, the reviewer is unknown to the author, but the identity of the author is known to the reviewer. Double-blind reviewing is more symmetric: The identity of the author and the reviewer are not revealed to each other. We first examine the significant scholarly literature regarding blind reviewing. We then list six benefits claimed for double-blind reviewing and 21 possible costs. To compare these benefits and costs, we propose a double-blind policy for TODS that attempts to minimize the costs while retaining the core benefit of fairness that double-blind reviewing provides, and evaluate that policy against each of the listed benefits and costs. Following that is a general discussion considering several questions: What does this have to do with TODS, does bias exist in computer science, and what is the appropriate decision procedure We explore the knobs a policy design can manipulate to fine-tune a double-blind review policy. This editorial ends with a specific decision.

AB - This editorial analyzes from a variety of perspectives the controversial issue of single-blind versus double-blind reviewing. In single-blind reviewing, the reviewer is unknown to the author, but the identity of the author is known to the reviewer. Double-blind reviewing is more symmetric: The identity of the author and the reviewer are not revealed to each other. We first examine the significant scholarly literature regarding blind reviewing. We then list six benefits claimed for double-blind reviewing and 21 possible costs. To compare these benefits and costs, we propose a double-blind policy for TODS that attempts to minimize the costs while retaining the core benefit of fairness that double-blind reviewing provides, and evaluate that policy against each of the listed benefits and costs. Following that is a general discussion considering several questions: What does this have to do with TODS, does bias exist in computer science, and what is the appropriate decision procedure We explore the knobs a policy design can manipulate to fine-tune a double-blind review policy. This editorial ends with a specific decision.

KW - Anonymous citation

KW - Blinding efficacy

KW - Double-blind review

KW - Gender bias

KW - Single-blind review

KW - Status bias

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33947666180&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33947666180&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1145/1206049.1206050

DO - 10.1145/1206049.1206050

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:33947666180

VL - 32

JO - ACM Transactions on Database Systems

JF - ACM Transactions on Database Systems

SN - 0362-5915

IS - 1

M1 - 1

ER -