Double blind peer review

Editorial

Nature 451, 605-606 (7 February 2008)

Working double-blind

Should there be author anonymity in peer review?

Double-blind peer review, in which both authors and referees are anonymous,
is apparently much revered, if not much practised. The Publishing Research
Consortium (PRC) has assessed attitudes towards peer review among 3,000
academics in an international survey across the sciences and humanities. The
results, released last month1, strongly affirm the value of peer review.
They also highlight that 71% have confidence in double-blind peer review and
that 56% prefer it to other forms of review. Support is highest with those
who have experienced it (the humanities and social sciences) or where it is
perceived to do the most good (among female authors). The least enthusiastic
group is editors. So is it time for editors, and those at Nature in
particular, to reconsider their position?

If referees know the authors' identities, it may leave the latter vulnerable
to biases about them or their previous work, their gender, their nationality
or their being new to an area of research. But the PRC survey supports the
contention of Nature and others that identifying authors stimulates referees
to ask appropriate questions (for example, differentiating between a muddy
technical explanation and poor experimental technique). Knowing author
identities also makes it easier to compare the new manuscript with the
authors' previously published work, to ensure that a true advance is being
reported. And knowing rather than guessing the identities of authors
encourages reviewers to raise potential conflicts of interest to the
editors.

Is there evidence that double-blind peer review presents a better
alternative? It would do so if it generated more constructive comments in
the minds of editors and authors, or if the identity of authors were truly
protected, or if biases were reduced. So far, the jury is out. Although at
least one study in the biomedical literature has suggested that double-blind
peer review increases the quality of reviews, a larger study of seven
medical journals2, 3 indicated that neither authors nor editors found
significant difference in the quality of comments when both referees and
authors were blinded. Referees could identify at least one of the authors on
about 40% of the papers, undermining the raison d'être for double-blinding.
The editors at the Public Library of Science abandoned double-blind peer
review because too few requested it and authors were too readily identified.

The one bright light in favour of double-blind peer review is the measured
reduction in bias against authors with female first names (shown in numerous
studies, such as ref. 4). This suggests that authors submitting papers to
traditionally minded journals should include the given names of authors only
on the final, published version.

The double-blind approach is predicated on a culture in which
manuscripts-in-progress are kept secret. This is true for the most part in
the life sciences. But some physical sciences, such as high-energy physics,
share preprints extensively through arXiv, an online repository. Thus,
double-blind peer review is at odds with another 'force for good' in the
academic world: the open sharing of information. The PRC survey found that
highly competitive fields (such as neuroscience) or those with larger
commercial or applied interests (such as materials science and chemical
engineering) were the most enthusiastic about double-blinding, whereas
fields with more of a tradition for openness (astronomy and mathematics)
were decidedly less supportive.

Where does this leave journals? Editors have the responsibility to provide a
neutral bridge between referees and authors and so may help to better shield
authors from bias. Easily said! The evidence of the PRC survey suggests
little faith in that impartiality, but editors ? certainly at Nature and its
related journals ? take that responsibility seriously.

Nature's policies over the years have generally moved towards greater
transparency. Coupling that with the lack of evidence that double-anonymity
is beneficial makes this journal resistant to adopting it as the default
refereeing policy any time soon. But many of our readers are referees as
well as authors. We welcome their views on author anonymity from both
vantage points. To that end, this Editorial will be posted for comment at
http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2008/02/working_doubleblind.html.

1. Publishing Research Consortium Peer Review in Scholarly Journals (Mark
Ware Consulting, Bristol, 2008); available at
http://www.publishingresearch.net/PeerReview.htm
2. Justice, A. C. et al. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 280, 240­242 (1998).
3. Cho, M. K. et al. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 280, 243­245 (1998).
4. Budden, A. E. et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 4­6 (2008).

.

Relevant Pages