Editorial: Single- versus double-blind reviewing

ACM Transactions on Database Systems

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2007, Pages

  Snodgrass, Richard T ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^b University of Arizona   (United States)

Author keywords

Anonymous citation; Blinding efficacy; Double blind review; Gender bias; Single blind review; Status bias

Indexed keywords

ANONYMOUS CITATION; BLINDING EFFICACY; DOUBLE-BLIND REVIEWING; GENDER BIAS; SINGLE-BLIND REVIEW; STATUS BIAS;

COMPUTER SCIENCE; COSTS; DATABASE SYSTEMS; DECISION MAKING; OPTIMIZATION;

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT;

EID: 33947666180     PISSN: 03625915     EISSN: 15574644     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/1206049.1206050     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. ACM PUBLICATIONSND BOARD. 2001. Rights and responsibilities in ACM publishing. http://www. acm.org/pubs/rights.html, viewed Dec. 5, 2006.
2. ALTMAN, N., BANKS, D., CHEN, P., DUFFY, D., HARDWICK, J., LEGER, C., OWEN, A., AND STUKEL, T. 1991. Meeting the needs of new statistical researchers. Statis. Sci 6, 2 (May), 163-174.
3. ALTMAN, N., ANGERS, J. P., BANKS, D., DUFFY, D., HARDWICK, J., LEGER, C., MARTIN, M., NOLAN, D., OWEN, A., POLITIS, D., ROEDER, K., STUKEL, T. N., AND YING, Z. 1992. Rejoinder. Statis. Sci. 7, 2 (May). 265-266.
4. BILLARD, L. 1993. Comment. Statis. Sci. 8, 3 (Aug.), 320-322.
5. BLANK, R. M. 1991. The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: Experimental evidence from the American economic review. Amer. Econom. Rev. 81, 5 (Dec.), 1041-1067.
6. BORTS, G. 1974. Report of the managing editor. Amer. Econom. Rev. 64, (May), 476-482.
7. CALFEE, R. C. AND VALENCIA, R. R. 2006. APA guide to preparing manuscripts for journal publication. http://www.apa.org/ journals/authors/guide.html.
8. CECI, S. J. AND PETERS, D. P. 1984. How blind is blind review? Amer. Psychol. 39, 1491-1494.
9. COX, D., GLESER, L., PERLMAN, M., REID, N., AND ROEDER, K. 1993. Report of the ad hoc committee of double-blind refereeing. Statis. Sci. 8, 3 (Aug.), 310-317.
10. DALTON, M. 1995. Refereeing of scholarly works for primary publishing. In Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST), vol. 30, M. E. Williams, ed. American Society of Information Science.
11. GARFUNKEL, J. M., ULSHEN, M. H., HAMRICK, H. J., AND LAWON, E. E. 1994. Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers' recommendations and editorial decisions. J. Amer. Medical Assoc. 272, 2 (Jul.), 137-138.
12. GENEST, C. 1993. Comment. Statis. Sci. 8, 3 (Aug.), 323-327.
13. GORDON, M. D. 1980. The role of referees in scientific communication. In The Psychology of Written Communication: Selected Readings, J. Hartley, ed. Kogan Page, London. 263-275.
14. GREENWALD, A. G. AND BANAJI, M. R. 1995. Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychol. Rev. 102, 1 (Jan.), 4-27.
15. HORROBIN, D. P. 1982. Peer review: A philosophically faulty concept which is proving disastrous to science. Behavior. Brain Sci. 5, 2, 217-218.
16. KARDES, F. R., MUTHUKRISHNAN, A. V., AND PASHKEVICH, V. 2005. On the conditions under which experience and motivation accentuate bias in intuitive judgement. In The Routines of Decision Making, T. Betsch and S. Haberstroh, eds. Lawrence Erlbaum. 139-156.
17. LINK, A. M. 1998. US and non-US submission: An analysis of review bias.J. Amer. Medical Assoc. 280, 3 (Jul.), 246-247.
18. MAHONEY, M. J., KAZDIN, A. E., AND KENIGSBERG, M. 1978. Getting published. Cognitive Therapy Res. 2, 1, 69-70.
19. MONTESI, M. 2006. From conference to journal publication. How conference papers in software engineering are extended for publication in journals. In preparation.
20. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION. 2004. Conflict-of-Interests and confidentiality statement for NSF panelists. NSF Form 1230P, Feb.
21. ROSENBLATT, A. AND KIRK, S. A. 1980. Recognition of authors in blind review of manuscripts. J. Social Serv. Res. 3, 4, 383-393.
22. SHIV, B., CARMON, Z., AND ARIELY, D. 2005. Placebo effects of marketing actions: Consumers may get what they pay for. J. Market. Res. 42, 4 (Nov.), 383-393.
23. SIRBU, A. AND VASILESCU, A.-T. 2006. The health of database research. Project Rep., Worcester Polytechnic Institute, May.
24. SNODGRASS, R. T. 2002. Rights and responsibilities in ACM publishing. Commun. ACM 45, 2 (Feb.), 97-101.
25. SNODGRASS, R. T. 2005. ACM TODS Associate Editor Manual. ACM, New York.
26. SNODGRASS, R. T. 2007. Single- versus double-blind reviewing: An analysis of the literature. ACM SIGMOD Rec. 35, 3 (Sept.), 8-21.
27. SNODGRASS, R. T. 2007. Frequently-Asked questions about double-blind reviewing. ACM SIGMOD Rec. 36, 1 (Mar.).
28. VAN ROOYEN, S., GODLEE, F., EVANS, S., SMITH, R., AND BLACK, N. 1999. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial. J. General Internal Medicine 14, 10 (Oct.), 622-624.
29. WERNER, S. 2006. Personal communication. Dec. 4.
30. WILSON, T. D. AND BREKKE, N. 1994. Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgements and evaluations. Psycholog. Bull. 116, 1 (Jul.), 117-142.
31. ZUCKERMAN, H. AND MERTON, R. K. 1971. Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalization, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva 9, 1 (Jan.), 66-100.