| Title |
Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientometrics, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11192-017-2264-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marco Seeber, Alberto Bacchelli |
| Abstract |
Several 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 5 | 14% |
| Germany | 4 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 8% |
| United States | 2 | 6% |
| Denmark | 2 | 6% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 6% |
| Austria | 1 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 12 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 24 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 9 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 6% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Librarian | 3 | 8% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 24% |
| Unknown | 5 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 9 | 24% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Philosophy | 2 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 27% |
| Unknown | 7 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,193,447
of 25,820,938 outputs
Outputs from Scientometrics
#167
of 2,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,544
of 324,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientometrics
#7
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,820,938 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,973 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,849 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.