Jun 01, 2023 00:00:00

A three-year test found that hiding the author of the paper from the reviewers reduces bias during peer review

When a general

academic journal is published, a specialist researcher reads the submitted paper to check the validity of the content, etc., and decides whether or not to publish it in the academic journal. the process takes place. However, it has been pointed out that the conventional peer review method causes bias toward the authors of papers and is unfair. Therefore, the Ecological Society of Britain tested a new peer review process that anonymized both reviewers and authors.

Double‐blind peer review affects reviewer ratings and editor decisions at an ecology journal
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.14259

Double-anonymous peer review reduces reviewer bias, finds three-year trial - British Ecological Society

https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/double-anonymous-peer-review-reduces-reviewer-bias-find-three-year-trial/

Many academic journals related to life sciences conduct peer review by “single anonymity” in which the referee's affiliation and name are not disclosed to the author of the paper when reviewing.

On the other hand, in the conventional single anonymity method, the information of the authors is transparent to the reviewers, and the reviewers are consciously or unconsciously biased in their judgments regarding gender, nationality, and affiliation. It was pointed out that it would be ruined.

Therefore, the Ecological Society of Britain conducted a survey to see if the possibility of bias in the peer review process could be reduced by keeping the information of the authors of papers private, in addition to the information of the reviewers. The British Ecological Society calls this method 'double anonymous peer review'.

A survey conducted by the British Ecological Society between 2019 and 2022 required peer-reviewed authors to submit their papers privately. In addition, half of the submitted papers, which were randomly selected, had author information in the title.

The study found that authors based in wealthy countries and countries with high English proficiency were more likely to be published when single-anonymous peer review was used. On the other hand, in papers that underwent double anonymous peer review, it was shown that when author information was anonymized, reviewer bias was reduced because reviewers did not know whose paper they were reviewing. it was done.

Even with anonymized author details, gender differences did not affect reviewers' evaluations or editorial decisions.

'Our study found that authors from high-income countries and English-speaking countries benefited greatly from the peer review process,' said Charles Fox, a research team member at the British Ecological Society. We show that using heavy anonymity peer review to anonymize author identities reduces these biases and makes the peer review process fairer.'

Fox added, ``It is of great academic importance that journals are published through a fair and unbiased process of peer review. It is the best way to minimize the effects of bias in

In response to the results of the research by the research team, the British Ecological Society has clarified that the peer review process for publishing academic journals will shift from the conventional single anonymous method to double anonymous peer review. Ecological Society British Publications Director Andrea Byer said: 'The Ecological Society British is committed to a fair process for the publication of its journals. It is very important that the peer review and publication selection process is fair.'

Rob Freckleton, Chair of the Ecological Society's Publishing Committee, said: ``On behalf of the Ecological Society, the Publishing Committee is committed to adopting an impartial review process by accepting dual anonymous peer review. I will.”