Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Double-blind in light of the internet: A note on author anonymity

Contents:

Author Info

  • Holm, Håkan J.

Abstract

This paper analyses the credibility of author anonymity that is provided by a double-blind review process. It is argued that authors have strong incentives to disseminate information about their papers before publication. A sample from two economics journals, both using double-blind review processes, provides evidence that author-revealing information of most accepted papers is available on the Internet before the review process is finished. The difficulty and cost of identifying authors of unpublished manuscripts from which author identity has been stripped, were examined in an experiment where subjects were paid according to their identification performance. The vast majority of authors could be identified within 60Â s.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V8J-4YPPPVW-1/2/974a2293308b8e20552372bf891830a5
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Information Economics and Policy.

Volume (Year): 23 (2011)
Issue (Month): 1 (March)
Pages: 24-26

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:eee:iepoli:v:23:y:2011:i:1:p:24-26

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505549

Related research

Keywords: Review process Information policy Scientific publication Experiment;

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Pantelis Kalaitzidakis & Theofanis P Mamuneas & Thanasis Stengos, 2001. "Rankings of Academic Journals and Institutions in Economics," Discussion Papers in Economics 01/8, Department of Economics, University of Leicester.
  2. Carolin Haeussler & Lin Jiang & Jerry Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, 2009. "Specific and General Information Sharing Among Academic Scientists," NBER Working Papers 15315, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  3. Ofer H. Azar, 2004. "Rejections and the importance of first response times," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 31(3), pages 259-274, March.
  4. Holm, Håkan J., 2009. "Double-Blind in Light of Internet – Note on Review Processes," Working Papers 2009:5, Lund University, Department of Economics.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:iepoli:v:23:y:2011:i:1:p:24-26. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.