a modest proposal: triple blind review

Fabio

In academia, we have single or double blind review. In the first case, editors and referees know the identity of the authors, but authors don’t know the referees. This is common in grant proposals, book evaluation and in some sciences. We also have double blind review – authors and referees don’t know each other’s identities. This is supposed to reduce bias. But we all know that the editor could still be biased because of the author’s status. So why not institute a new form of refereeing?

TRIPLE BLIND REVIEW – the authors anonymously upload the paper to the journal website and the editor handles the submission without knowledge of who the author is. The author is identified only by number. Communication happens through the website.

If the editors know the author before hand, or the author is so well known that they can’t hide their identity, then this won’t work. But it would probably maintain confidentiality in about 90% of cases. But what if the author contacts the editor and biases the process? Or the editor and author are friends? Then we institute:

QUADRUPLE BLIND REVIEW – No one knows the editor of the journal. The editor is appointed by a board, like the ASA publications committee, but is kept secret. It’s all done through the journal web site.

Once again, bias could creep in. Maybe readers will only cite works by previously famous scholars. What if we went one step further?

QUINTIPLE BLIND REVIEW – Even after publication, the author’s name is kept secret, at least for a few years. You would cite the journal name and article number.

You would search for good articles, not articles by established scholars. But there is one level of anonymity that we can still use:

SEXTUPLE BLIND REVIEW – The name of journal itself is kept secret. You know nothing about the editor, reviewers, authors or the journal’s sponsoring organization. It’s just a web site with articles and you would read them looking for good articles.

This last proposal is nifty – it’s a direct attack on the monopoly of status possessed by publishing houses, professional associations, and established academics. Anyone could create a website that published articles and only the quality of the articles would matter. If readers have responses to my proposals, you can email me, anonymously, and you’ll get feedback from a super secret panel of high quality reviewers.