As scientists we all know that a good part of our professional success is “measured” by our publications. Not only the number, but also the quality of the research, as well as the impact factor of the journal it is published. Peer-reviewing is the method of judgment utilized by most of the scientific journals out there. However, everybody knows that there is bias involved in reviewing. This week on #DiversityJC we are going to discuss the following article:
Hilda Bastian (@hildabast) also did review of the literature on the different methods of peer review & how there’s still a lot of uncertainty, especially surrounding how it affects diversity of what’s published.
The most common method of peer reviewing is the single-blind review. This type of peer review keeps the identity of the reviewer anonymous, but the name and affiliations of the authors are open to the reviewer. This allows the reviewer to evaluate a paper without any influence from the authors. In a double-blind peer reviewing system, both the identities of the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous. The other alternative would be a total open review, where identities remain public to both sides. But some questions remain:
Q1: Is double-blind peer review a realistic alternative?
Q2: Could open or double blind peer review mitigate bias?
Q3: Would an open peer-review system be more effective than the single-blind one?
Q4: Can an open peer-review system bring valuable critique to the authors?
Q5: Single-, double-blind or open peer review, which one brings more diversity?
Join our #DiversityJC discussion, next Monday Sept 7th, 2pm EST!
Emily S. Klein