Double-Blind in Light of Internet – Note on Review Processes
AbstractThis paper analyses the credibility of author anonymity provided by double-blind review processes. 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 processes are finished. The difficulty and cost of identifying authors of anonymized unpublished manuscripts are examined in an experiment where subjects are paid according to their identification performance. The vast majority of authors can be identified within 60 seconds.
Download InfoIf 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Lund University, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 2009:5.
Length: 39 pages
Date of creation: 19 Apr 2009
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Department of Economics, School of Economics and Management, Lund University, Box 7082, S-220 07 Lund,Sweden
Phone: +46 +46 222 0000
Fax: +46 +46 2224613
Web page: http://www.nek.lu.se/en
More information through EDIRC
Review Process; Scientific Publication; Experiment;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
- D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General
- O30 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2009-04-25 (All new papers)
- NEP-HPE-2009-04-25 (History & Philosophy of Economics)
- NEP-ORE-2009-04-25 (Operations Research)
- NEP-SOG-2009-04-25 (Sociology of Economics)
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.:
- Kalaitzidakis, P. & Mamuneas, T.P. & Stengos, T., 2003. "Rankings of Academic Journals and Institutions," Working Papers 2003-8, University of Guelph, Department of Economics and Finance.
- Ted Bergstrom, 2001.
"Free Labor for Costly Journals?,"
- Bergstrom, Ted, 2001. "Free Labor for Costly Journals?," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt5jc0893p, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
- 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 1041-67, December.
- 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.
- Glenn Ellison, 2002.
"The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(5), pages 947-993, October.
- repec:fth:calaec:16-01 is not listed on IDEAS
- Holm, Håkan J., 2011. "Double-blind in light of the internet: A note on author anonymity," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 24-26, March.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (David Edgerton).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.