Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?

AbstractSeveral fields of research are characterized by the coexistence of two different peer review modes to select quality contributions for scientific venues, namely double blind (DBR) and single blind (SBR) peer review. In the first, the identities of both authors and reviewers are not known to each other, whereas in the latter the authors’ identities are visible since the start of the review process. The need to adopt either one of these modes has been object of scholarly debate, which has mostly focused on issues of fairness. Past work reported that SBR is potentially associated with biases related to the gender, nationality, and language of the authors, as well as the prestige and type of their institutions. Nevertheless, evidence is lacking on whether revealing the identities of the authors favors reputed authors and hinder newcomers, a bias with potentially important consequences in terms of knowledge production. Accordingly, we investigate whether and to what extent SBR, compared to a DBR, relates to a higher ration of reputed scholars, at the expense of newcomers. This relation is pivotal for science, as past research provided evidence that newcomers support renovation and advances in a research field by introducing new and heterodox ideas and approaches, whereas inbreeding have serious detrimental effects on innovation and creativity. Our study explores the mentioned issues in the field of computer science, by exploiting a database that encompasses 21,535 research papers authored by 47,201 individuals and published in 71 among the 80 most impactful computer science conferences in 2014 and 2015. We found evidence that—other characteristics of the conferences taken in consideration—SBR indeed relates to a lower ration of contributions from newcomers to the venue and particularly newcomers that are otherwise experienced of publishing in other computer science conferences, suggesting the possible existence of ingroup–outgroup behaviors that may harm knowledge advancement in the long run.

[1]  Tomas McKelvey.  Using evolutionary theory to define systems of Innovation , 1997 .

[2]  Pamela P. Sawallis,et al.  Accuracy in the Identification of Scholarly and Peer-Reviewed Journals and the Peer-Review Process Across Disciplines , 2003 .

[3]  MARGOT O'TOOLE,et al.  Imanishi-Kari (continued) , 1991, Nature.

[4]  Arthur G. Bedeian,et al.  Peer Review and the Social Construction of Knowledge in the Management Discipline , 2004 .

[5]  Richard A. Guzzo,et al.  Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness. , 1996, Annual review of psychology.

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

[7]  Warren E. Watson,et al.  Cultural diversity''s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diver , 1993 .

[8]  Daryl E. Chubin,et al.  Scientists in Organizations: Productive Climates for Research and Development , 1967 .

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

[10]  Richard T. Snodgrass,et al.  Single- versus double-blind reviewing: an analysis of the literature , 2006, SGMD.

[11]  David J. DeWitt,et al.  Impact of double-blind reviewing on SIGMOD publication rates , 2006, SGMD.

[12]  Bertrand Meyer,et al.  ViewpointResearch evaluation for computer science , 2009, CACM.

[13]  C. Wennerås,et al.  Nepotism and sexism in peer-review , 1997, Nature.

[14]  S. E. Jackson.  The consequences of diversity in multidisciplinary work teams , 1996 .

[15]  Tony Becher,et al.  Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines , 2001 .

[16]  Flaminio Squazzoni,et al.  Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study , 2013 .

[17]  Tony Becher,et al.  Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines , 1991 .

[18]  Paul J. Roebber,et al.  Peer Review, Program Officers and Science Funding , 2011, PloS one.

[19]  Juan Miguel Campanario,et al.  Rejecting and resisting Nobel class discoveries: accounts by Nobel Laureates , 2009, Scientometrics.

[20]  Hugo Horta,et al.  Navel Gazing: Academic Inbreeding and Scientific Productivity , 2010, Manag. Sci..

[21]  S. Jackson,et al.  Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? , 1989 .

[22]  H. Laborit,et al.  [Experimental study]. , 1958, Bulletin mensuel - Societe de medecine militaire francaise.

[23]  魏屹东,et al.  Scientometrics , 2018, Encyclopedia of Big Data.

[24]  J. Ruiz Moreno.  [Organizational learning]. , 2001, Revista de enfermeria.

[25]  R. Nichols,et al.  Spatial patterns of genetic variation generated by different forms of dispersal during range expansion , 1996, Heredity.

[26]  Ulf Sandström,et al.  Persistent nepotism in peer-review , 2008, Scientometrics.

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

[28]  Anthony K. H. Tung.  Impact of double blind reviewing on SIGMOD publication: a more detail analysis , 2006, SGMD.

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

[30]  Norman Kaplan,et al.  The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations , 1974 .

[31]  N. Krieger,et al.  Revisiting Robinson: the perils of individualistic and ecologic fallacy. , 2009, International journal of epidemiology.

[32]  H. Marsh,et al.  Improving the Peer-review Process for Grant Applications , 2022 .

[33]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning , 2007 .

[34]  Padraig Cunningham,et al.  Relative status of journal and conference publications in computer science , 2010, Commun. ACM.

[35]  W. Powell,et al.  The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields , 1983 .

[36]  S. Fletcher.  Guardians of Science: Fairness and Reliability of Peer Review , 1994 .

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

[38]  Joseph A. Konstan,et al.  Conference paper selectivity and impact , 2010, Commun. ACM.

[39]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  The luck of the referee draw: the effect of exchanging reviews , 2009, Learn. Publ..

[40]  J. March.  Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning , 1991, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[41]  A. Oswald,et al.  Can We Test for Bias in Scientific Peer-Review? , 2008 .

[42]  David Pontille,et al.  The Blind Shall See! The Question of Anonymity in Journal Peer Review. , 2014 .

[43]  Flaminio Squazzoni,et al.  Is three better than one? simulating the effect of reviewer selection and behavior on the quality and efficiency of peer review , 2015, 2015 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC).

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

[45]  Katsiaryna Mirylenka,et al.  On peer review in computer science: analysis of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvement , 2013, Scientometrics.

[46]  Amber E. Budden,et al.  To Name or Not to Name: The Effect of Changing Author Gender on Peer Review , 2009 .

[47]  T. Tregenza,et al.  Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. , 2008, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[48]  A. Link.  US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. , 1998, JAMA.

[49]  Hans-Dieter Daniel,et al.  Guardians of Science: Fairness and Reliability of Peer Review , 1994 .

[50]  Bernard Berelson,et al.  From Graduate Education in the United States , 1961 .

[51]  Fabrizio Perretti,et al.  Mixing genres and matching people: a study in innovation and team composition in Hollywood , 2007 .

[52]  Roel Bosker,et al.  Multilevel analysis : an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling , 1999 .

[53]  J. Armstrong,et al.  Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation , 1997 .

[54]  Robert P Freckleton,et al.  Does double-blind review benefit female authors? , 2008, Trends in ecology & evolution.

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

[56]  R. Katz.  The Effects of Group Longevity on Project Communication and Performance. , 1982 .

[57]  Alexander Zahar,et al.  Shaping written knowledge: the genre and activity of the experimental article in science , 1991, Medical History.

[58]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  The mover’s advantage: The superior performance of migrant scientists , 2014 .

[59]  W. S. Robinson,et al.  Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. , 1950, International journal of epidemiology.

[60]  Marian Williams,et al.  Graduate Education in the United States , 1961 .

[61]  Manuel Soler,et al.  How inbreeding affects productivity in Europe , 2001, Nature.

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

[63]  Lisa Bero,et al.  Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[64]  P. V. Marsden,et al.  Core Discussion Networks of Americans , 1987 .

[65]  M. Ruef,et al.  Strong ties, weak ties and islands: structural and cultural predictors of organizational innovation , 2002 .

[66]  R. R. Snell,et al.  Menage a Quoi? Optimal Number of Peer Reviewers , 2015, PloS one.

[67]  C. Gross,et al.  Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. , 2006, JAMA.