Does the "Blindness" of Peer Review Influence Manuscript Selection Efficiency?

Abstract

Although we find Blank's results compelling, it is difficult to draw solid conclusions from them. Perhaps this is what Ashenfelter meant when he referred to the ambiguous findings regarding the nature of any biases. The issue of scientific concern vis-a-vis type of review process employed by journal editors is the severity of type-I and type-II errors. Do editors employing a single-blind review process systematically publish more papers that have little or no impact on the profession and/or fail to publish more truly good papers than do editors of double-blind journals? Blank's findings do not provide certain relevant information with respect to the type-I/typeII error problem that arguably plagues single-blind reviewing but not double-blind reviewing.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 42 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.