IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0315674.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A randomized controlled trial on anonymizing reviewers to each other in peer review discussions

Author

Listed:
  • Charvi Rastogi
  • Xiangchen Song
  • Zhijing Jin
  • Ivan Stelmakh
  • Hal Daumé III
  • Kun Zhang
  • Nihar B Shah

Abstract

Many peer-review processes involve reviewers submitting their independent reviews, followed by a discussion between the reviewers of each paper. A common question among policymakers is whether the reviewers of a paper should be anonymous to each other during the discussion. We shed light on this question by conducting a randomized controlled trial at the Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI) 2022 conference where reviewer discussions were conducted over a typed forum. We randomly split the reviewers and papers into two conditions–one with anonymous discussions and the other with non-anonymous discussions. We also conduct an anonymous survey of all reviewers to understand their experience and opinions. We compare the two conditions in terms of the amount of discussion, influence of seniority on the final decisions, politeness, reviewers’ self-reported experiences and preferences. Overall, this experiment finds small, significant differences favoring the anonymous discussion setup based on the evaluation criteria considered in this work.

Suggested Citation

  • Charvi Rastogi & Xiangchen Song & Zhijing Jin & Ivan Stelmakh & Hal Daumé III & Kun Zhang & Nihar B Shah, 2024. "A randomized controlled trial on anonymizing reviewers to each other in peer review discussions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(12), pages 1-19, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0315674
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315674
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0315674
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0315674&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0315674?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0315674. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.