In the space of a few days, Nature’s Editorial on double-blind peer review (Nature 451, 605–606; 2008) had gathered almost 50 comments on the Peer-to-Peer blog.
The Editorial concluded that double-blind peer review (in which both authors and reviewers are anonymous) is unlikely to be used at Nature, but asked readers for their views. In a torrent of comments, a theme emerged among self-defined junior researchers that the current single-blind system is biased against them in favour of established investigators.
But “Bob O’H” performed a model calculation that suggests that double-blind review merely shifts the bias so that “the very famous” actually do better, as do “the very obscure”; the scientists who lose out are the ones in the middle. Another view expressed is that in journals with high rejection rates, reviews are of lower quality.
Would double-blinding affect review quality? Or would it result in more scientists declining to review for journals? Your comments are welcome!
Nature 451, xvi; 21 February 2008