The Blind Shall See! The Question of Anonymity in Journal Peer Review.

This article examines the issue of the respective knowledge of authors and reviewers: is it fairer to judge a manuscript in the full light of day, or hidden away from prying eyes? Should one know everything about the authors of a manuscript, or nothing at all? In short, does the anonymity of the reviewers and/or authors guarantee or prevent an objective assessment? It looks at how these became central issues for scientific journals between 1950 and 1970. It then examine how, from the 1980s onwards, a certain number of categories became stabilized, such as the "single blind" and "double blind" and "open review", which lay down the options available to journals and learned societies.

[1]  C. Bazerman.  Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science , 1989 .

[2]  J. Wilson.  Peer review and publication. Presidential address before the 70th annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Investigation, San Francisco, California, 30 April 1978. , 1978, The Journal of clinical investigation.

[3]  Domenic V. Cicchetti,et al.  A Statistical Analysis of Reviewer Agreement and Bias in Evaluating Medical Abstracts 1 , 1976, The Yale journal of biology and medicine.

[4]  Berthold K. P. Horn.  Robot vision , 1986, MIT electrical engineering and computer science series.

[5]  R. Merton,et al.  Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system , 1971 .

[6]  A. Weller.  Editorial peer review : its strengths and weaknesses , 2001 .

[7]  F B ROGERS,et al.  Medical Subject Headings , 1948, Nature.

[8]  R. Blank.  The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review , 1991 .

[9]  Ann C. Weller,et al.  Betrayers of the Truth , 1984 .

[10]  J. L. Heilbron,et al.  Leviathan and the air-pump. Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life , 1989, Medical History.

[11]  Donna Harawy.  Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective , 2022, Philosophical Literary Journal Logos.

[12]  Maurice B. Line,et al.  Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses , 2002 .

[13]  P P Morgan.  Anonymity in medical journals. , 1984, Canadian Medical Association journal.

[14]  Lawrence D. Berg.  Masculinism, Emplacement, and Positionality in Peer Review , 2001 .

[15]  Lucy Suchman,et al.  Robot visions , 2014, Social studies of science.

[16]  Benedek Ep.  Editorial practices of psychiatric and related journals: implications for women. , 1976 .

[17]  Tim Lloyd.  Report of the Managing Editor , 2002 .

[18]  L. Debakey.  The Scientific Journal , 1976 .

[19]  J. Nurnberger,et al.  Peer review policy , 1992 .

[20]  Charles Bazerman,et al.  Persuasion at a Distance. (Book Reviews: Shaping Written Knowledge. The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science.) , 1990 .

[21]  S. Haack.  Peer Review and Publication , 2014 .

[22]  J. Burnham.  The evolution of editorial peer review. , 1990, JAMA.

[23]  S. Ceci,et al.  Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again , 1982, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[24]  M. Mahoney.  Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system , 1977, Cognitive Therapy and Research.

[25]  W. Kolbrener.  A Culture of Fact: England, 1550-1720 , 2002 .

[26]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  Bias in peer review , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..