IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v113y2017i1d10.1007_s11192-017-2264-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?

Author

Listed:
  • Marco Seeber
  • Alberto Bacchelli

Abstract

Several fields of research are characterized by the coexistence of two different peer review modes to select quality contributions for scientific venues, namely double blind (DBR) and single blind (SBR) peer review. In the first, the identities of both authors and reviewers are not known to each other, whereas in the latter the authors’ identities are visible since the start of the review process. The need to adopt either one of these modes has been object of scholarly debate, which has mostly focused on issues of fairness. Past work reported that SBR is potentially associated with biases related to the gender, nationality, and language of the authors, as well as the prestige and type of their institutions. Nevertheless, evidence is lacking on whether revealing the identities of the authors favors reputed authors and hinder newcomers, a bias with potentially important consequences in terms of knowledge production. Accordingly, we investigate whether and to what extent SBR, compared to a DBR, relates to a higher ration of reputed scholars, at the expense of newcomers. This relation is pivotal for science, as past research provided evidence that newcomers support renovation and advances in a research field by introducing new and heterodox ideas and approaches, whereas inbreeding have serious detrimental effects on innovation and creativity. Our study explores the mentioned issues in the field of computer science, by exploiting a database that encompasses 21,535 research papers authored by 47,201 individuals and published in 71 among the 80 most impactful computer science conferences in 2014 and 2015. We found evidence that—other characteristics of the conferences taken in consideration—SBR indeed relates to a lower ration of contributions from newcomers to the venue and particularly newcomers that are otherwise experienced of publishing in other computer science conferences, suggesting the possible existence of ingroup–outgroup behaviors that may harm knowledge advancement in the long run.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco Seeber & Alberto Bacchelli, 2017. "Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 567-585, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:113:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2264-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2264-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-017-2264-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-017-2264-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Franzoni, Chiara & Scellato, Giuseppe & Stephan, Paula, 2014. "The mover’s advantage: The superior performance of migrant scientists," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 89-93.
    2. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    3. Squazzoni, Flaminio & Bravo, Giangiacomo & Takács, Károly, 2013. "Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 287-294.
    4. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    5. Christine Wennerås & Agnes Wold, 1997. "Nepotism and sexism in peer-review," Nature, Nature, vol. 387(6631), pages 341-343, May.
    6. Manuel Soler, 2001. "How inbreeding affects productivity in Europe," Nature, Nature, vol. 411(6834), pages 132-132, May.
    7. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    8. Azzurra Ragone & Katsiaryna Mirylenka & Fabio Casati & Maurizio Marchese, 2013. "On peer review in computer science: analysis of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvement," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 317-356, November.
    9. Paul J Roebber & David M Schultz, 2011. "Peer Review, Program Officers and Science Funding," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(4), pages 1-6, April.
    10. Blank, Rebecca M, 1991. "The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1041-1067, December.
    11. Karen A. Bantel & Susan E. Jackson, 1989. "Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(S1), pages 107-124, June.
    12. Hugo Horta & Francisco M. Veloso & Rócio Grediaga, 2010. "Navel Gazing: Academic Inbreeding and Scientific Productivity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(3), pages 414-429, March.
    13. Oswald, Andrew J., 2008. "Can We Test for Bias in Scientific Peer-Review?," IZA Discussion Papers 3665, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Juan Miguel Campanario, 2009. "Rejecting and resisting Nobel class discoveries: accounts by Nobel Laureates," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 549-565, November.
    15. Martin Ruef, 2002. "Strong ties, weak ties and islands: structural and cultural predictors of organizational innovation," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(3), pages 427-449, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lokman Tutuncu & Recep Yucedogru & Idris Sarisoy, 2022. "Academic favoritism at work: insider bias in Turkish national journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2547-2576, May.
    2. Lokman Tutuncu, 2023. "All-pervading insider bias alters review time in Turkish university journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3743-3791, June.
    3. Marco Seeber, 2020. "How do journals of different rank instruct peer reviewers? Reviewer guidelines in the field of management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1387-1405, March.
    4. Simone Righi & Károly Takács, 2017. "The miracle of peer review and development in science: an agent-based model," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 587-607, October.
    5. Pengfei Jia & Weixi Xie & Guangyao Zhang & Xianwen Wang, 2023. "Do reviewers get their deserved acknowledgments from the authors of manuscripts?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5687-5703, October.
    6. Sergio Copiello, 2018. "On the money value of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 613-620, April.
    7. Monica Aniela Zaharie & Marco Seeber, 2018. "Are non-monetary rewards effective in attracting peer reviewers? A natural experiment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1587-1609, December.
    8. Maciej J. Mrowinski & Agata Fronczak & Piotr Fronczak & Olgica Nedic & Aleksandar Dekanski, 2020. "The hurdles of academic publishing from the perspective of journal editors: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 115-133, October.
    9. Mengyi Sun & Jainabou Barry Danfa & Misha Teplitskiy, 2022. "Does double‐blind peer review reduce bias? Evidence from a top computer science conference," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(6), pages 811-819, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bradford Demarest & Guo Freeman & Cassidy R. Sugimoto, 2014. "The reviewer in the mirror: examining gendered and ethnicized notions of reciprocity in peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 717-735, October.
    2. Laura Hospido & Carlos Sanz, 2021. "Gender Gaps in the Evaluation of Research: Evidence from Submissions to Economics Conferences," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(3), pages 590-618, June.
    3. Richard R Snell, 2015. "Menage a Quoi? Optimal Number of Peer Reviewers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    4. Monica Aniela Zaharie & Marco Seeber, 2018. "Are non-monetary rewards effective in attracting peer reviewers? A natural experiment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1587-1609, December.
    5. Vicente Safón, 2019. "Inter-ranking reputational effects: an analysis of the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE) reputational relationship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 897-915, November.
    6. Laura Hospido & Carlos Sanz, 2019. "Gender gaps in the evaluation of research: evidence from submissions to economics conferences (Updated March 2020)," Working Papers 1918, Banco de España, revised Mar 2020.
    7. Mohammadi, Ali & Broström, Anders & Franzoni, Chiara, 2015. "Work Force Composition and Innovation: How Diversity in Employees’ Ethnical and Disciplinary Backgrounds Facilitates Knowledge Re-combination," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 413, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    8. Bäker, Agnes, 2015. "Non-tenured post-doctoral researchers’ job mobility and research output: An analysis of the role of research discipline, department size, and coauthors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 634-650.
    9. Rodríguez Sánchez, Isabel & Makkonen, Teemu & Williams, Allan M., 2019. "Peer review assessment of originality in tourism journals: critical perspective of key gatekeepers," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-11.
    10. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Macho-Stadler, Inés & Pérez-Castrillo, David, 2019. "Evaluation in research funding agencies: Are structurally diverse teams biased against?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1823-1840.
    11. Feliciani, Thomas & Morreau, Michael & Luo, Junwen & Lucas, Pablo & Shankar, Kalpana, 2022. "Designing grant-review panels for better funding decisions: Lessons from an empirically calibrated simulation model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).
    12. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna, 2017. "What do Editors Maximize? Evidence from Four Leading Economics Journals," NBER Working Papers 23282, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Randa Alsabahi, 2022. "English Medium Publications: Opening or Closing Doors to Authors with Non-English Language Backgrounds," English Language Teaching, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 15(10), pages 1-18, October.
    14. Thomas Feliciani & Junwen Luo & Lai Ma & Pablo Lucas & Flaminio Squazzoni & Ana Marušić & Kalpana Shankar, 2019. "A scoping review of simulation models of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 555-594, October.
    15. Stephen A Gallo & Joanne H Sullivan & Scott R Glisson, 2016. "The Influence of Peer Reviewer Expertise on the Evaluation of Research Funding Applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, October.
    16. Mario Paolucci & Francisco Grimaldo, 2014. "Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 663-688, June.
    17. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna, 2020. "What Do Editors Maximize? Evidence from Four Economics Journals," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(1), pages 195-217, March.
    18. Kok, Holmer & Faems, Dries & de Faria, Pedro, 2022. "Pork Barrel or Barrel of Gold? Examining the performance implications of earmarking in public R&D grants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    19. Sergio Copiello, 2018. "On the money value of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 613-620, April.
    20. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:113:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2264-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.