Selected articles on BPR (Blind Peer Review)
Having peers review manuscripts submitted for publication helps ensure the quality of scholarly journal articles. Blind peer review (BPR), the process traditionally used for this purpose, has well-documented advantages and disadvantages. However, few researchers have addressed the harm inflicted on reviewees directly, and on academia and the quality of peer-reviewed articles indirectly, by misguided blind peer reviewers. In this paper, the focus is on the dark side of blind peer review, what it is, why it happens, and what can be done about it. I describe a constructive blind peer review process (CBPR) that enhances the current BPR process by incorporating the nature of the feedback provided by the reviewer and its impact on the reviewee. I then discuss how to use the CBPR and a modified version of Lewin’s classic three-step change model, the continuous change model (CCM), to identify ways to improve the BPR process and determine strategies for implementing them successfully.
Eliminating the Dark Side of Blind Peer Review—A Change Management Perspective
2) Single-Blind Vs. Double-Blind Peer Review - Simple Guide, Matthieu Chartier, Ph.D., Published on 27 April 2022While the first scientific journal was launched in 1665, the peer review process began in the 1970s and is often considered to be at the core of the scientific method. Peer reviews provide legitimacy and prestige to academic conferences and publications, and are essential to maintaining the trust between scientists and the public. In order for an academic conference to be considered legitimate and to provide value to both presenters and attendees, there must be a thorough peer-review process. Peer review is defined as “a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field.” (source)
Single-Blind Vs. Double-Blind Peer Review - Simple Guide 3) Double-Blind Peer Review: Pros, cons and everything in-between By PAEditorial Updated: 29 October 2021Double-blind peer review is a process used by scholarly journals where the reviewer’s identity is hidden from the authors and vice versa. Journals typically require removing any author details in the manuscript, including self-citations, acknowledgements and any associated properties attached to the manuscript file. In 2012, the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology published one of the largest studies on peer review. Double-blind peer review was found to be an effective option by 76% of respondents. Styles of peer review have been discussed at length and will continue to be debated in the future.
Double-Blind Peer Review: Pros, cons and everything in-between 4) Open versus blind peer review: Is anonymity better than transparency? Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 August 2020Peer review is widely accepted as essential to ensuring scientific quality in academic journals, yet little training is provided in the specifics of how to conduct peer review. In this article we describe the different forms of peer review, with a particular focus on the differences between single-blind, double-blind and open peer review, and the advantages and disadvantages of each. These illustrate some of the challenges facing the community of authors, editors, reviewers and readers in relation to the process of peer review. We also describe other forms of peer review, such as post-publication review, transferable review and collaborative review, and encourage clinicians and academics at all training stages to engage in the practice of peer review as part of continuing professional development.
