Single-Blind vs Double-Blind Peer Review

One of the reasons why academic journals command respect and are at the forefront of publishing scientific breakthroughs is because of their strict peer-review process. Peer reviews serve as a quality-control process that helps maintain the credibility of academic research. It is an integral part of scientific publishing that ensures that scholarly articles meet rigorous standards of accuracy and significance. It involves the evaluation of research manuscripts by experts in the field and confirms the validity of the research presented. Peer reviewers are typically subject-matter experts who volunteer their time to review and improve manuscripts submitted to academic and scientific journals for publishing. Among the common methods of peer review, single-blind and double-blind peer review are the most significant and popular. 

Single-Blind Peer Review 

In the single-blind peer review process, reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities, but authors remain unaware of who the reviewers are. This approach is primarily centered on the idea that hiding reviewers’ identities can foster greater honesty in the assessment of research articles. Reviewers may feel freer to evaluate the work without being concerned about potential sensitivities, ultimately leading to more candid and unbiased evaluations. 

Conversely, there are also advantages to revealing the identities and affiliations of authors to reviewers. This disclosure allows for a more context-specific review, as the research findings are assessed in the context of the authors’ body of work. It facilitates the identification of potential conflicts of interest, especially in cases where reviewers have previously collaborated with the authors, enabling them to decline review offers when there is a risk of biased evaluation. (1)(6)

Double-Blind Peer Review 

In the double-blind peer review process, both authors and reviewers are unaware of each other’s identities. It reduces the potential for biased reviews influenced by preconceptions about the authors. This anonymity helps to create a more equitable environment for the peer review process and ensures that assessments are based solely on the merits of the research presented in the manuscripts.  

This makes the double-blind peer review process particularly beneficial for early-career researchers. Studies(5) have demonstrated their preference for this method when submitting manuscripts, primarily due to its capacity to reduce the risk of prejudice that could otherwise disadvantage younger or less experienced authors, as well as women and ethnic minority authors. (2)

Single-Blind Peer Vs Double-Blind Peer Review 

The results of a randomized experiment conducted by the American Economic Review(2) shed light on the comparison between single-blind vs double-blind peer review. The experiment focused on acceptance rates and referee ratings, and the findings indicated distinct trends. 

It was observed that paper acceptance rates were lower for double-blind peer review, and reviewers tended to be more critical when the author’s identity was hidden. Notably, the patterns were consistent for both female and male authors. This suggests that, in this specific study, single-blind peer review had a slight edge in terms of acceptance rates and referee ratings.  

However, the impact of the reviewing method varied based on the authors’ institutional affiliations. Authors at top-ranked universities and colleges showed little variation in acceptance rates and referee ratings between double-blind and single-blind reviewing, implying that either method could be suitable. In contrast, authors from near-top-ranked universities and non-academic institutions experienced lower acceptance rates under double-blind reviewing. For these groups of authors, single-blind peer review seemed to offer a more favorable chance of acceptance. 

In another experiment conducted by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America(3), single-blind reviewers were observed to be influenced by information about authors and institutions. Reviewers exhibited a higher tendency to bid on papers originating from prestigious institutions and are more inclined to recommend the acceptance of papers authored by renowned individuals or affiliated with top institutions when compared to their double-blind counterparts.  

In situations where two contributions exhibit roughly equal merit, single-blind reviewers might have a bias in favor of the one affiliated with a prestigious institution, while double-blind reviewers are less likely to display this bias. 

Single-Blind or Double-Blind Peer Review – Which one to choose? 

Ultimately, the choice between single-blind and double-blind peer review should be a carefully considered and deliberate one, based on the specific context and objectives of the review. It is imperative that a transparent approach is followed to ensure a fair and impartial peer review process in academic publishing. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the journal to implement a peer review process that enhances the transparency, objectivity and integrity of academic publishing.

References: 

1. Open versus blind peer review: is anonymity better than transparency? – Cambridge University Press 
2. The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing – The American Economic Review 
3. Reviewer bias in single – versus double-blind peer review – Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 
4. Peer review: the experience and views of early career researchers – Rodríguez-Bravo, B, Nicholas 
5. Double- vs single-blind peer review effect on acceptance rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials – ScienceDirect 
6. Chapter 5 – Blind Peer Review by Academic Journals – Emily A. Largent, Richard T. Snodgrass 

Researcher.Life is a subscription-based platform that unifies the best AI tools and services designed to speed up, simplify, and streamline every step of a researcher’s journey. The Researcher.Life All Access Pack is a one-of-a-kind subscription that unlocks full access to an AI writing assistant, literature recommender, journal finder, scientific illustration tool, and exclusive discounts on professional publication services from Editage. 

Based on 21+ years of experience in academia, Researcher.Life All Access empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success. Explore our top AI Tools pack, AI Tools + Publication Services pack, or Build Your Own Plan. Find everything a researcher needs to succeed, all in one place – Get All Access now starting at just $17 a month!