A three-year randomized trial comparing double- and single-anonymous peer review methods indicates that reviewer bias is reduced when both author and reviewer identities are anonymized.
The research is published in Functional Ecology.
When reviewers did not know whose paper they were reviewing, peer review outcomes were similar across author demographics; in contrast, when reviewers did know whose paper they were reviewing (e.g. single-anonymous peer review), papers with first authors residing in higher-income countries and in countries with higher English proficiency were favored.
From British Ecological Society
View Full Article
No entries found