HomeОбразованиеRelated VideosMore From: John Bond

Single Blind or Double Blind Peer Review in Publishing?

21 ratings | 914 views
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SINGLE BLIND AND DOUBLE BLIND PEER REVIEW IN SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING: This short video by John Bond of Riverwinds Consulting discusses the differences between these two types of peer review systems. MORE VIDEOS on PEER REVIEW can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqkE49N6nq3iYB7cqK8OSGmVKzZJwRBS8 FIND OUT more about John Bond and his publishing consulting practice at www.RiverwindsConsulting.com SEND IDEAS for John to discuss on Publishing Defined. Email him at [email protected] or see http://www.PublishingDefined.com CONNECT Twitter: https://twitter.com/JohnHBond LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnbondnj Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/113338584717955505192 Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/51052703-john-bond YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/JohnBond BOOKS by John Bond: The Story of You: http://www.booksbyjohnbond.com/the-story-of-you/about-the-book/ You Can Write and Publish a Book: http://www.booksbyjohnbond.com/you-can-write-and-publish-a-book/about-the-book/ TRANSCRIPT: Hi there. I am John Bond from Riverwinds Consulting and this is Publishing Defined. Today I am going to discuss the difference between single blind and double blind peer review as it relates to scholarly publishing. As a reminder, peer review is the evaluation of a scholarly article by the editors, editorial board, and the reviewers of a journal to determine if the article is worthy of publication. Journals may operate under many different types of systems but single blind and double blind peer review are the most common. In single blind peer review, the authors are not privy to the names of the peer reviewers. In this version, reviewers being anonymous allows for them to be honest in their opinion of the content when giving their feedback to the journal. Authors may be concerned that the reviewer’s knowledge of who the author and the institution are may lead to bias in the critique. Single blind, however, is the most common type of all the systems particularly in STM publishing. In double blind peer review, both the author and reviewers are anonymous. The author takes the time to anonymize their article, deleting all references to the author and their institution. Sometimes, however, this anonymizing may be done by the journal’s editorial staff. In this system, the reviewers are focused on the content and, extraneous information such as the institution or county of origin or how well known the author is, does not interfere in the process. A consideration with double blind peer review is that by definition the reviewers are subject matter experts on the topic of the paper and they can sometimes take an educated guess as to who the authors or where the work was done. Aside from single and double blind is the concept of open review. This is when the authors and reviewers know who each other are. On the plus side, it leads to a more transparent process. On the downside, some fear that politeness or political correctness on the reviewers may lead to reserved criticism, allowing inferior material to move forward into the publication process. Open review, while practiced by some notable publications, is not wide spread at this time. The debate continues whether single blind or double blind is the most optimal form of peer review. A quick search of the web will yield several interesting studies about the benefits or disadvantages of either one, as well as lots of personal commentary. Human nature and a natural bias toward a specific topic or practice will make either single blind or double blind potentially flawed. A complete lack of conflicts of interest cannot be avoided because the reviewers are people. Whether single or double blind, the best an author can do is choose a well-respected journal that they are familiar with and submit meaningful work that is well written. After that, it is up to the editor and the editorial board to facilitate a meaningful peer review that is free of bias, conflict of interest, or agenda peddling. This includes maintaining a well-respected board of experts that are current in their fields and know what is expected of them when they provide a peer review. Well that’s it. Hit the Like button below if you enjoyed this video. Please subscribe to my YouTube channel or click on the playlist to see more videos about peer review. And make comments below or email me with questions. Thank so much and take care.
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (3)
Manuscript Manager (8 months ago)
Well-explained, John. Thank you on behalf of all new journal editors! #peerreview, #journalmanagementsystem, #manuscriptmanager
John Bond (8 months ago)
Thanks #ManuscriptManager ! Appreciate the comment.
Amir Hamza (1 year ago)
good kept it sir

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.