Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review

Tomkins, A., Zhang, M., & Heavlin, W. D. (2017). Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(48), 12708-12713.

Type

Journal article

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

2017

DOI

10.1073/pnas.1707323114

Link

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114

Cited from

library_information_science

Cited by

2 citations across 2 artifacts.

Primes

• Peer Review
  • A controlled experiment at WSDM 2017 found that single-blind reviewers favored famous authors and high-prestige institutions relative to double-blind reviewers in that setting, but this result does not establish one universal effect size or prove that anonymization removes all bias.

Mechanisms

• Blind or Double-Blind Review
  • That makes it unusually robust — it does not depend on a reviewer's goodwill or self-awareness — and it directly interrupts status-driven bias

Verification

This reference passed the adversarial substantiation pipeline: it was checked to exist and to support the claim it is attached to. See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:f6143e451377 · see in the full table