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

SIGMOD Record

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 8-21

  Snodgrass, Richard ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AD-HOC REVIEWERS; BLIND REVIEWING; JOURNALS;

BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING; COMPUTER SCIENCE; MEDICINE; PUBLISHING; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

DATA REDUCTION;

EID: 33749600053     PISSN: 01635808     EISSN: 01635808     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/1168092.1168094     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. [Abrams 1991] P. A. Abrams, "The Predictive Ability of Peer Review of Grant Proposals: The Case of Ecology and the US National Science Foundation," Social Studies of Science 21(1): 111-132, February 1991.
2. [Altman et al. 1991] N. Altman, D. Banks, P. Chen, D. Duffy, J. Hardwick, C. Léger, A. Owen, and T. Stukel, "Meeting the Needs of New Statistical Researchers," Statistical Science 6(2):163-174, May 1991.
3. [Altman et al. 1992] N. Altman, J. F. Angers, D. Banks, D. Duffy, J. Hardwick, C. Léger, M. Martin, D. Nolan (Chair), A. Owen, D. Politis, K. Roeder, T. N. Stukle and Z. Ying, "Rejoinder," Statistical Science 7(2):265-266, May 1992.
4. [Armstrong 1997] J. S. Armstrong, 22Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation," Science and Engineering Ethics 3:63-84, 1997.
5. [Bachand & Sawallis 2003] R. G. Bachand and P. P. Sawallis, "Accuracy in the Identification of Scholarly and Peer-Reviewed Journals and the Peer-Review Process Across Disciplines," The Serials Librarian 45(2):39-59, 2003.
6. [Billard 1993] L. Billard, "Comment," Statistical Science 8(3):320-322, August 1993.
7. [Calfee & Valencia 2006] R. C. Calfee and R. R. Valencia, "APA Guide to Preparing Manuscripts for Journal Publication," http: //www.apa.org/journals/authors/guide.html, viewed June 21, 2006.
8. [Blank 1991] R. M. Blank, "The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review," American Economic Review 81(5):1041-1067, December 1991.
9. [Borts 1974] G. Borts, "Report of the Managing Editor" American Economic Review 64:476-82, May 1974.
10. [Campanario 1998a] J. M Campanario, "Peer Review for Journals at It Stands Today-Part 1," Science Communication 19(3):181-211, March 1998.
11. [Campanario 1998b] J. M. Campanario, "Peer Review for Journals at It Stands Today-Part 2," Science Communication 19(4):277-306, June 1998.
12. [Garland et al. 1992] J. A. Garland, J. W. Garland, and G. D. Aby, Jr., "Proposed Codification of Ethicacy in the Publication Process," Journal of Business Ethics 11:95-104, 1992.
13. [Ceci & Peters 1984] S. J. Ceci and D. P. Peters, "How blind is blind review?" American Psychologist 39:1491-1494, 1984.
14. [Cho et al. 1998] M. K. Cho, A. C. Justice, M. A. Winker, J. A. Berlin, J. F. Waecklerle, M. L. Callaham, and D. Rennie, "Masking author identity in peer review-What factors influence masking success?" Journal of the American Medical Association 280(3):243-245, July 15, 1998.
15. [Cox et al. 1993] D. Cox, L. Gleser, M. Perlman, N. Reid, and K. Roeder, "Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of Double-Blind Refereeing," Statistical Science 8(3):310-317, August 1993.
16. [Dalton 1995] M. Dalton, "Refereeing of Scholarly Works for Primary Publishing," in Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST), Volume 30, M. E. Williams (ed.), American Society of Information Science, 1995.
17. [Evans et al. 1990] A. T. Evans, R. A. McNutt, R. H. Fletcher, and S. W Fletcher, "The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review: A Randomized Trial," Clinical Research 38(2), 1990.
18. [Fisher et al. 1994] M. Fisher, S. B. Friedman, and B. Strauss, "The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review," Journal of the American Medical Association 272(2): 143-146, July 13, 1994.
19. [Fletcher & Fletcher 1997] R. H. Fletcher and S. W Fletcher, "Evidence for the Effectiveness of Peer Review," Science and Engineering Ethics 3(1):35-50, 1997.
20. [Fouad et al. 2000] N. Fouad, S. Brehm, C. I. Hall, M. E. Kite, J. S. Hyde, and N. F. Russo, Women in Academe: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back, Report of the Task Force on Women in Academe, American Psychological Association, 2000. http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/academe/repthome.html, viewed June 21, 2006.
21. [Franzini 1987] L. R. Franzini, "Editors Are Not Blind," American Psychologist, page 104, January 1987.
22. [Garfunkel et al. 1994] J. M. Garfunkel, M. H. Ulshen, H. J. Hamrick, and E. E. Lawon, "Effect of Institutional Prestige on Reviewers' Recommendations and Editorial Decisions," Journal of the American Medical Association 272(2): 137-138, July 13, 1994.
23. [Genest 1993] C. Genest, "Comment," Statistical Science 8(3):323-327, August, 1993.
24. [Goldberg 1968] P. Goldberg, "Are some women prejudiced against women?" Transaction 5:28-30, April, 1968.
25. [Gordon 1980] M. D. Gordon, "The role of referees in scientific communication," in The Psychology of Written Communication: Selected Readings, J. Hartley (ed.), London, England: Kogan Page, pp. 263-275, 1980.
26. [Harnad 1982] S. Harnad, "Peer commentary on peer review," Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5(2): 185-186, 1982.
27. [Hill & Provost 2003] S. Hill and F. Provost, "The Myth of the Double-Blind Review," SIGKDD Explorations 2(5):179-184, December 2003.
28. [Horrobin 1982] D. F. Horrobin, "Peer review: A philosophically faulty concept which is proving disastrous to science," Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5(2):217-218, 1982.
29. [Justice et al. 1998] A. C. Justice, M. K. Cho, M. A. Winker, J. A. Berlin, and D. Rennie, "Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?" Journal of the American Medical Association 280(3):240-242, July 15, 1998.
30. [Laband 1994] D. N. Laband, "A Citation Analysis of the Impact of Blinded Peer Review," Journal of the American Medical Association 272(2): 147-149, July 13, 1994.
31. [Link 1998] A. M. Link, "US and Non-US Submission: An Analysis of Review Bias," Journal of the American Medical Association 280(3):246-241, July 15, 1998.
32. [Madden & DeWitt 2006] S. Madden and D. DeWitt, "Impact of Double-Blind Reviewing on SIGMOD Publication Rates," ACM SIGMOD Record 35(2):29-32, June 2006.
33. [Mahoney et al. 1978] M. J. Mahoney, A. E. Kazdin, and M. Kenigsberg, "Getting Published," Cognitive Therapy and Research 2(1):69-70, 1978.
34. [McGiffert 1988] M. McGiffert, "Is Justice Blind? An Inquiry into Peer Review," Scholarly Publishing 20(1):43-48, October 1988.
35. [McNutt et al. 1990] R. A. MuNutt, A. T. Evans, R. H. Fletcher, and S. W. Fletcher, "The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review," Journal of the American Medical Association 263(10):1371-1376, March 9, 1990.
36. [Perlman 1982] D. Perlman, "Reviewer "bias": Do Peters and Ceci protest too much?" Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5(2):231-232, 1982.
37. [Peters & Ceci 1982] D. P. Peters and S. J. Ceci, "Peer-Review Practices of Psychological Journals: The Fate of Published Articles, Submitted Again," Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5(2): 187-195, 1982.
38. [Pitkin 1995] R. M. Pitkin, "Blinded Manuscript Review: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?" Editorial, Obstetrics and Gynecology 85(5 Part I):781-782, May 1995.
39. [Poutney 1996] M. Poutney, "Blinded Reviewing," Editorial, Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 38(12): 1059-1060, December 1996.
40. [Rennie 1990] D. Rennie, "Editorial Peer Review in Biomedical Publication: The First International Conference," Journal of the American Medical Association 263(10): 1317, March 9, 1990.
41. [Rennie & Flanagin 1994] D. Rennie and A. Flanagin, "The Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication," Journal of the American Medical Association 272(2):91, July 13, 1994.
42. [Rosenblatt & Kirk 1980] A. Rosenblatt and S. A. Kirk, "Recognition of Authors in Blind Review of Manuscripts," Journal of Social Service Research 3(4):383-394, Summer 1980.
43. [Rosenthal 1982] R. Rosenthal, "Reliability and Bias in Peer-Review Practices," Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5(2):235-236, 1991.
44. [Smith et al. 2002] J. A. Smith, R. Nixon, A. J. Bueschen, D. D. Venable, and H. H. Henry, "The Impact of Blinded versus Unblinded Abstract Review on Scientific Program Content," Journal of Urology 168(5):2123-2125, November 2002.
45. [Snodgrass 2000] R. T Snodgrass, "Chair's Message," ACM SIGMOD Record 29(1):3, March 2000.
46. [Snodgrass 2003] R. T Snodgrass, "Developments at TODS" ACM SIGMOD Record 32(4): 14-15, December 2003.
47. [Swim et al. 1989] J. K. Swim, E. Borgida, G. Maruyama, and D. G. Myers, "Joan McKay versus John McKay: Do gender stereotypes bias evaluations?" Psychological Bulletin 105(3):409-429, 1989.
48. [Tobias & Zibrin 1978] S. Tobias and M. Zibrin, "Does Blind Reviewing Make a Difference?" Educational Researcher 7(1): 14-16, January 1978.
49. [Tung 2006] A. K. H. Tung, "Impact of Double Blind Reviewing on SIGMOD Publication: A More Detail Analysis," 2 pages, July 2006.
50. [van Rooyen 1999] S. van Rooyen, F. Godlee, S. Evans, R. Smith, and N. Black, "Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review: A Randomized Trial," Journal of General Internal Medicine 14(10):622-624, October 1999.
51. [Yankauer 1991] A. Yankauer, "How Blind is Blind Review?" American Journal of Public Health 81(7):843-845, July 1991.
52. [Zuckerman & Merton 1971] H. Zuckerman and R. K. Merton, "Patterns of Evaluation in Science: Institutionalization, Structure and Functions of the Referee System," Minerva 9(1):66-100, January 1971.