Single- Versus double-blind reviewing: An analysis of the literature

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A substantial scholarly literature regarding blind reviewing, which includes empirical studies for biomedicine, communication, computer science, economics, education, and many more are discussed. The arguments for double-blind reviewing are that it is fairer and it produces higher quality reviews. Peer review is the use of predetermined reviewers, in the case of program committees, or ad-hoc reviewers, in the case of reviewers for most journals, who individually read the submitted manuscript and prepare a written interview. The identity of the reviewer is not revealed to other reviewers in most of the journals. The important point is that the term single-blind reviewing applies only to hiding the identity of the reviewer from the author. An argument for double-blind reviewing is that it is fairer to authors and thus, indirectly to readers.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)8-21
Number of pages14
JournalSIGMOD Record
Volume35
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Computer science
Education
Economics
Communication

ASJC Scopus subject areas

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

Cite this

Single- Versus double-blind reviewing : An analysis of the literature. / Snodgrass, Richard Thomas.

In: SIGMOD Record, Vol. 35, No. 3, 2006, p. 8-21.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4d479d5ce6794c829a0820cb4f9f4dec,
title = "Single- Versus double-blind reviewing: An analysis of the literature",
abstract = "A substantial scholarly literature regarding blind reviewing, which includes empirical studies for biomedicine, communication, computer science, economics, education, and many more are discussed. The arguments for double-blind reviewing are that it is fairer and it produces higher quality reviews. Peer review is the use of predetermined reviewers, in the case of program committees, or ad-hoc reviewers, in the case of reviewers for most journals, who individually read the submitted manuscript and prepare a written interview. The identity of the reviewer is not revealed to other reviewers in most of the journals. The important point is that the term single-blind reviewing applies only to hiding the identity of the reviewer from the author. An argument for double-blind reviewing is that it is fairer to authors and thus, indirectly to readers.",
author = "Snodgrass, {Richard Thomas}",
year = "2006",
doi = "10.1145/1168092.1168094",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "8--21",
journal = "SIGMOD Record",
issn = "0163-5808",
publisher = "Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Single- Versus double-blind reviewing

T2 - An analysis of the literature

AU - Snodgrass, Richard Thomas

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - A substantial scholarly literature regarding blind reviewing, which includes empirical studies for biomedicine, communication, computer science, economics, education, and many more are discussed. The arguments for double-blind reviewing are that it is fairer and it produces higher quality reviews. Peer review is the use of predetermined reviewers, in the case of program committees, or ad-hoc reviewers, in the case of reviewers for most journals, who individually read the submitted manuscript and prepare a written interview. The identity of the reviewer is not revealed to other reviewers in most of the journals. The important point is that the term single-blind reviewing applies only to hiding the identity of the reviewer from the author. An argument for double-blind reviewing is that it is fairer to authors and thus, indirectly to readers.

AB - A substantial scholarly literature regarding blind reviewing, which includes empirical studies for biomedicine, communication, computer science, economics, education, and many more are discussed. The arguments for double-blind reviewing are that it is fairer and it produces higher quality reviews. Peer review is the use of predetermined reviewers, in the case of program committees, or ad-hoc reviewers, in the case of reviewers for most journals, who individually read the submitted manuscript and prepare a written interview. The identity of the reviewer is not revealed to other reviewers in most of the journals. The important point is that the term single-blind reviewing applies only to hiding the identity of the reviewer from the author. An argument for double-blind reviewing is that it is fairer to authors and thus, indirectly to readers.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33749600053&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33749600053&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1145/1168092.1168094

DO - 10.1145/1168092.1168094

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:33749600053

VL - 35

SP - 8

EP - 21

JO - SIGMOD Record

JF - SIGMOD Record

SN - 0163-5808

IS - 3

ER -