Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

The Case For and Against Double-blind Reviews

Amelia R. Cox, Robert Mongomerie
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/495465
Amelia R. Cox
1Biology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert Mongomerie
1Biology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

To date, the majority of authors on scientific publications have been men. While much of this gender bias can be explained by historic sexism and discrimination, there is concern that women may still be disadvantaged by the peer review process if reviewers’ unconscious biases lead them to reject publications with female authors more often. One potential solution to this perceived gender bias in the reviewing process is for journals to adopt double-blind reviews whereby neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other’s identities and genders. To test the efficacy of double-blind reviews, we assigned gender to every authorship of every paper published in 5 different journals with different peer review processes (double-blind vs. single blind) and subject matter (birds vs. behavioral ecology) from 2010-2018 (n = 4865 papers). While female authorships comprised only 35% of the total, the double-blind journal Behavioral Ecology did not have more female authorships than its single-blind counterparts. Interestingly, the incidence of female authorship is higher at behavioral ecology journals (Behavioral Ecology and Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology) than in the ornithology journals (Auk, Condor, Ibis), for papers on all topics as well as those on birds. These analyses suggest that double-blind review does not currently increase the incidence of female authorship in the journals studied here. We conclude, at least for these journals, that double-blind review does not benefit female authors and may, in the long run, be detrimental.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted December 16, 2018.
Download PDF
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Case For and Against Double-blind Reviews
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
The Case For and Against Double-blind Reviews
Amelia R. Cox, Robert Mongomerie
bioRxiv 495465; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/495465
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
The Case For and Against Double-blind Reviews
Amelia R. Cox, Robert Mongomerie
bioRxiv 495465; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/495465

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Scientific Communication and Education
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (3571)
  • Biochemistry (7514)
  • Bioengineering (5473)
  • Bioinformatics (20664)
  • Biophysics (10250)
  • Cancer Biology (7925)
  • Cell Biology (11563)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (6558)
  • Ecology (10129)
  • Epidemiology (2065)
  • Evolutionary Biology (13526)
  • Genetics (9493)
  • Genomics (12784)
  • Immunology (7869)
  • Microbiology (19429)
  • Molecular Biology (7609)
  • Neuroscience (41854)
  • Paleontology (306)
  • Pathology (1252)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2178)
  • Physiology (3247)
  • Plant Biology (6993)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1290)
  • Synthetic Biology (1941)
  • Systems Biology (5404)
  • Zoology (1107)