IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v130y2025i1d10.1007_s11192-024-05213-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of author characteristics on outcomes of single- versus double-blind peer review: a systematic review of comparative studies in scientific abstracts and publications

Author

Listed:
  • Vasiliki P. Giannakakos

    (Montefiore Medical Center / Albert Einstein College of Medicine)

  • Troy S. Karanfilian

    (Montefiore Medical Center / Albert Einstein College of Medicine)

  • Antonios D. Dimopoulos

    (Montefiore Medical Center / Albert Einstein College of Medicine)

  • Anne Barmettler

    (Montefiore Medical Center / Albert Einstein College of Medicine
    Montefiore Medical Center / Albert Einstein College of Medicine)

Abstract

The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the role of double-blind (DB) peer review on bias against authors when compared to single-blind (SB) peer review in scientific publications. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a search of databases including Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science, without language or date restrictions, was conducted to identify original research studies comparing peer-review outcomes between DB and SB methods based on any of the following author characteristics: gender, race, geographic location, personal prestige, institutional prestige. Studies were ranked Level I, II, or III for quality of evidence based on a modified version of the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence. Of 29 studies included, five level I studies, the highest quality evidence, showed that in SB peer review, the following author characteristics were associated with more positive outcomes: male gender, White race, location of the US or North America, well-published or known in their field, or affiliation with prestigious institutions. The evidence of whether DB peer review resulted in better outcomes for authors lacking these characteristics was more discordant, possibly due to lack of effective blinding or due to unblinded editor decisions. However, if bias reduction is defined as elimination of advantages afforded to only certain types of authors, DB peer review should be considered.

Suggested Citation

  • Vasiliki P. Giannakakos & Troy S. Karanfilian & Antonios D. Dimopoulos & Anne Barmettler, 2025. "Impact of author characteristics on outcomes of single- versus double-blind peer review: a systematic review of comparative studies in scientific abstracts and publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(1), pages 399-421, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05213-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05213-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-05213-x
    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/s11192-024-05213-x?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fredrik Carlsson & Åsa Löfgren & Thomas Sterner, 2012. "Discrimination in Scientific Review: A Natural Field Experiment on Blind versus Non‐Blind Reviews," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 114(2), pages 500-519, June.
    2. 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.
    3. repec:plo:pone00:0201725 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Eitan Frachtenberg & Kelly S McConville, 2022. "Metrics and methods in the evaluation of prestige bias in peer review: A case study in computer systems conferences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-29, February.
    5. Maite Solans-Domènech & Imma Guillamón & Aida Ribera & Ignacio Ferreira-González & Carme Carrion & Gaietà Permanyer-Miralda & Joan M. V. Pons, 2017. "Blinding applicants in a first-stage peer-review process of biomedical research grants: An observational study," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 181-189.
    6. 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.
    7. Eitan Frachtenberg & Rhody D Kaner, 2022. "Underrepresentation of women in computer systems research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-23, April.
    8. Marco Seeber & Alberto Bacchelli, 2017. "Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 567-585, 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Sergio Copiello, 2018. "On the money value of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 613-620, April.
    3. 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.
    4. García, J.A. & Montero-Parodi, J.J. & Rodriguez-Sánchez, Rosa & Fdez-Valdivia, J., 2023. "How to motivate a reviewer with a present bias to work harder," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Clemens B. Fell & Cornelius J. König, 2016. "Is there a gender difference in scientific collaboration? A scientometric examination of co-authorships among industrial–organizational psychologists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 113-141, July.
    8. Lin Zhang & Yuanyuan Shang & Ying Huang & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2022. "Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on publons," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 145-179, January.
    9. Stephen A Gallo & Karen B Schmaling, 2022. "Peer review: Risk and risk tolerance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(8), pages 1-20, August.
    10. Justus Haucap & Johannes Muck, 2015. "What drives the relevance and reputation of economics journals? An update from a survey among economists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 849-877, June.
    11. Jürgen Janger & Nicole Schmidt-Padickakudy & Anna Strauss-Kollin, 2019. "International Differences in Basic Research Grant Funding. A Systematic Comparison," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61664.
    12. Josh Yamamoto & Eitan Frachtenberg, 2022. "Gender Differences in Collaboration Patterns in Computer Science," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, February.
    13. Daniel E Acuna & Misha Teplitskiy & James A Evans & Konrad Kording, 2022. "Author-suggested reviewers rate manuscripts much more favorably: A cross-sectional analysis of the neuroscience section of PLOS ONE," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(12), pages 1-13, December.
    14. 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.
    15. Zhentao Liang & Jin Mao & Gang Li, 2023. "Bias against scientific novelty: A prepublication perspective," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 99-114, January.
    16. Elena Veretennik & Maria Yudkevich, 2023. "Inconsistent quality signals: evidence from the regional journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3675-3701, June.
    17. Meyer, Matthias & Waldkirch, Rüdiger W. & Duscher, Irina & Just, Alexander, 2018. "Drivers of citations: An analysis of publications in “top” accounting journals," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 24-46.
    18. Seeber, Marco & Alon, Ilan & Pina, David G. & Piro, Fredrik Niclas & Seeber, Michele, 2022. "Predictors of applying for and winning an ERC Proof-of-Concept grant: An automated machine learning model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    19. Zhang, Lin & Shang, Yuanyuan & HUANG, Ying & Sivertsen, Gunnar, 2021. "Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on Publons," SocArXiv 4z6w8, Center for Open Science.
    20. 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).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Y8 - Miscellaneous Categories - - Related Disciplines

    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:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05213-x. 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.