Abstract
A scholarly peer review is the process whereby referees scrutinize research work or a manuscript within their field of expertise and decide on its acceptability for publication in a journal or scientific proceeding. Ideally, peer review is impartial. Among the many models of peer review, the single blind is currently the most adopted model in scientific journals. The double-blind model has been claimed to decrease bias, despite some difficulty in implementation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peer%20review. Accessed November 5, 2019.
Haffar S, Bazerbachi F, Murad MH. Peer review bias: a critical review. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019;94:670–6.
Najjar W, Mouanness MA, Rameh G, Bazi T. International authorship in leading world journals on incontinence and pelvic floor disorders: is it truly international? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;241:104–8.
Editorial. Nature journals offer double-blind review. Nature. 2015;518:274.
van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1998;280:234–7.
Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;280:237–40.
Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators. JAMA. 1998;280:240–2.
Alam M, Kim NA, Havey J, Rademaker A, Ratner D, Tregre B, et al. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study. Br J Dermatol. 2011;165:563–7.
Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. Is double-blinded peer review necessary? The effect of blinding on review quality. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136:1369–77.
Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, Hong Y, Grant AO, Daniels SR, et al. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA. 2006;295:1675–80.
Tomkins A, Zhang M, Heavlin WD. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114:12708–13.
Okike K, Hug KT, Kocher MS, Leopold SS. Single-blind vs double-blind peer review in the setting of author prestige. JAMA. 2016;316:1315–6.
Nylenna M, Riis P, Karlsson Y. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. JAMA. 1994;272:149–51.
Tóth J. Blind myself: simple steps for editors and software providers to take against affiliation bias. Sci Eng Ethics. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00128-w.
Rezaeian M. Dealing with the serious underrepresentation of editors from low-income countries. Epidemiolog. 2015;26:e55–6.
Opthof T, Coronel R, Janse MJ. The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias. Cardiovasc Res. 2002;56:339–46.
Brubaker L. Conflict of interest: what is the role of our professional societies? Neurourol Urodyn. 2012;31:1217–8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
None.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bazi, T. Peer review: single-blind, double-blind, or all the way-blind?. Int Urogynecol J 31, 481–483 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04187-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04187-2