Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?

Scientometrics

Volumn 113, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 567-585

  Seeber, Marco ^a   Bacchelli, Alberto ^b  

^a NONE   (Belgium)

^b Mekelweg 4   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Bias; Computer science; Double blind review; In group out group; Newcomers; Single blind review

Indexed keywords

EID: 85014275377     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2264-7     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. AER. (2011). Special announcement to authors. American Economic Review, 3(2).
2. Armstrong, J. S. (1997). Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3(1), 63–84.
3. Bachand, R. G., & Sawallis, P. P. (2003). Accuracy in the identification of scholarly and peer-reviewed journals and the peer-review process across disciplines. The Serials Librarian, 45(2), 39–59.
4. Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10(S1), 107–124.
5. Bazerman, C., et al. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science (Vol. 356). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
6. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (1989/2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Buckingham: Open University Press.
7. Bedeian, A. G. (2004). Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(2), 198–216.
8. Benedek, E. P. (1976). Editorial practices of psychiatric and related journals: Implications for women. American Journal of Psychiatry, 133(1), 89–92.
9. Berelson, B. (1960). Graduate education in the United States. Washington, DC: ERIC.
10. Bianchi, F., & Squazzoni, F. (2015). Is three better than one? simulating the effect of reviewer selection and behavior on the quality and efficiency of peer review. In 2015 Winter simulation conference (WSC) (pp. 4081–4089). IEEE.
11. Blank, R. M. (1991). The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: Experimental evidence from the American economic review. The American Economic Review, 81, 1041–1067.
12. BMJ. (1974). Editorial: Both sides of the fence. British Medical Journal, 2(5912), 185–186.
13. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009). The luck of the referee draw: The effect of exchanging reviews. Learned Publishing, 22(2), 117–125.
14. Borsuk, R. M., Aarssen, L. W., Budden, A. E., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., Tregenza, T., et al. (2009). To name or not to name: The effect of changing author gender on peer review. BioScience, 59(11), 985–989.
15. Budden, A. E., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L. W., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., & Lortie, C. J. (2008). Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(1), 4–6.
16. Burnham, J. C. (1990). The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA, 263(10), 1323–1329.
17. Campanario, J. (2009). Rejecting and resisting nobel class discoveries: Accounts by nobel laureates. Scientometrics, 81(2), 549–565.
18. Chen, J., & Konstan, J. A. (2010). Conference paper selectivity and impact. Communications of the ACM, 53(6), 79–83.
19. Crane, D. (1967). The gatekeepers of science: Some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals. The American Sociologist, 32, 195–201.
20. Daniel, H.-D., et al. (1993). Guardians of science. Fairness and reliability of peer review. New York: VCH.
21. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
22. Ernst, E., & Kienbacher, T. (1991). Chauvinism. Nature, 352, 560.
23. Franzoni, C., Scellato, G., & Stephan, P. (2014). The movers advantage: The superior performance of migrant scientists. Economics Letters, 122(1), 89–93.
24. Freyne, J., Coyle, L., Smyth, B., & Cunningham, P. (2010). Relative status of journal and conference publications in computer science. Communications of the ACM, 53(11), 124–132.
25. Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47(1), 307–338.
26. Horta, H., Veloso, F. M., & Grediaga, R. (2010). Navel gazing: Academic inbreeding and scientific productivity. Management Science, 56(3), 414–429.
27. Jackson, S. E. (1996). The consequences of diversity in multidisciplinary work teams. In Handbook of work group psychology, (pp. 53–75).
28. Jones, K., & Subramanian, S. (2012). Developing multilevel models for analysing contextuality, heterogeneity and change. Bristol: Centre for Multilevel Modelling.
29. Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81–104.
30. Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17.
31. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.
32. Link, A. M. (1998). Us and non-us submissions: An analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA, 280(3), 246–247.
33. Madden, S., & DeWitt, D. (2006). Impact of double-blind reviewing on sigmod publication rates. ACM SIGMOD Record, 35(2), 29–32.
34. Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(2), 161–175.
35. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
36. Marsden, P. V. (1987). Core discussion networks of Americans. American Sociological Review, 52, 122–131.
37. Marsh, H. W., Jayasinghe, U. W., & Bond, N. W. (2008). Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. American Psychologist, 63(3), 160.
38. McKelvey, M. (1997). Using evolutionary theory to define systems of innovation. In Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations, (pp. 200–222).
39. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40. Meyer, B., Choppy, C., Staunstrup, J., & van Leeuwen, J. (2009). Viewpoint research evaluation for computer science. Communications of the ACM, 52(4), 31–34.
41. Oswald, A. J. (2008). Can we test for bias in scientific peer-review. IZA discussion paper 3665. Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor.
42. Pelz, D. C., & Andrews, F. M. (1966). Scientists in organizations: Productive climates for research and development. New York: Wiley.
43. Perretti, F., & Negro, G. (2007). Mixing genres and matching people: A study in innovation and team composition in hollywood. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(5), 563–586.
44. Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(02), 187–195.
45. Pontille, D., & Torny, D. (2014). The blind shall see! the question of anonymity in journal peer review. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology. doi:10.7264/N3542KVW.
46. Ragone, A., Mirylenka, K., Casati, F., & Marchese, M. (2013). On peer review in computer science: Analysis of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvement. Scientometrics, 97(2), 317–356.
47. Robinson, W. S. (2009). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. International Journal of Epidemiology, 38(2), 337–341.
48. Roebber, P. J., & Schultz, D. M. (2011). Peer review, program officers and science funding. PLoS ONE, 6(4), e18680.
49. Ross, J. S., Gross, C. P., Desai, M. M., Hong, Y., Grant, A. O., Daniels, S. R., et al. (2006). Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA, 295(14), 1675–1680.
50. Ruef, M. (2002). Strong ties, weak ties and islands: Structural and cultural predictors of organizational innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 427–449.
51. Sandström, U., & Hällsten, M. (2008). Persistent nepotism in peer-review. Scientometrics, 74(2), 175–189.
52. Siler, K., Lee, K., & Bero, L. (2015). Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(2), 360–365.
53. Snell, R. R. (2015). Menage a quoi? Optimal number of peer reviewers. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0120838.
54. Snijders, T. A., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: SAGE.
55. Snodgrass, R. (2006). Single-versus double-blind reviewing: An analysis of the literature. ACM Sigmod Record, 35(3), 8–21.
56. Soler, M. (2001). How inbreeding affects productivity in europe. Nature, 411(6834), 132–132.
57. Squazzoni, F., Bravo, G., & Takács, K. (2013). Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study. Research Policy, 42(1), 287–294.
58. Subramanian, S., Jones, K., Kaddour, A., & Krieger, N. (2009). Revisiting robinson: The perils of individualistic and ecologic fallacy. International Journal of Epidemiology, 38(2), 342–360.
59. Tung, A. K. (2006). Impact of double blind reviewing on sigmod publication: A more detail analysis. ACM SIGMOD Record, 35(3), 6–7.
60. Ward, W. D., & Goudsmit, S. (1967). Reviewer and author anonymity. Physics Today, 20, 12.
61. Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 590–602.
62. Webb, T. J., OHara, B., & Freckleton, R. P. (2008). Does double-blind review benefit female authors? Heredity, 77, 282–291.
63. Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses. Medford: Information Today.
64. Wenneras, C., & Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature, 387(6631), 341.
65. Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9(1), 66–100.