Comments on: The future of blind review in an online world http://camba.ucsd.edu/blog/phonoloblog/2006/12/08/the-future-of-blind-review-in-an-online-world/ all things phonology | camba.ucsd.edu/phonoloblog Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:00:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: S&P: Editors’ Blog » Blog Archive » Stalking the Perfect Journal http://camba.ucsd.edu/blog/phonoloblog/2006/12/08/the-future-of-blind-review-in-an-online-world/#comment-2865 S&P: Editors’ Blog » Blog Archive » Stalking the Perfect Journal Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:49:16 +0000 http://camba.ucsd.edu/phonoloblog/index.php/2006/12/08/the-future-of-blind-review-in-an-online-world/#comment-2865 <p>[...] We will give authors the option of submitting anonymous manuscripts. But it has to be acknowledged that it is hard to maintain anonymity in a small field and in the context of the internet, as discussed elsewhere (here, here, and here). [...]</p> [...] We will give authors the option of submitting anonymous manuscripts. But it has to be acknowledged that it is hard to maintain anonymity in a small field and in the context of the internet, as discussed elsewhere (here, here, and here). [...]

]]> By: Curt Rice http://camba.ucsd.edu/blog/phonoloblog/2006/12/08/the-future-of-blind-review-in-an-online-world/#comment-2864 Curt Rice Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:51:11 +0000 http://camba.ucsd.edu/phonoloblog/index.php/2006/12/08/the-future-of-blind-review-in-an-online-world/#comment-2864 <p>Having recently taken on (partial) editorial responsibility for Linguistic Inquiry squibs recently, I've found myself having to confront a closely related issue. LI in general does not use blind review, i.e. papers are sent for review with the author's name visible to the reviewers. The identity of reviewers, however, is not necessarily revealed to the author.</p> <p>Somewhere along the way, the squibs section was modified to allow authors to choose whether or not they would like their squib submission to be reviewed blindly or not.</p> <p>As I've been trying to develop my own position on this practice, the reality described in the discussion Eric points us to is of course relevant. That is, to what extent does any journal anymore actually have blind reviews, given the internet, etc?</p> <p>I don't have much in the way of conclusions to offer on this, but I am very interested in hearing the perspectives of others. I have found that the situation influences me as an editor in at least one important way, and that is that I prefer not to use relatively "young" scholars as reviewers for papers by senior people, because it seems to be difficult for them to be critical at the appropriate level; given the rejection rate we have to maintain, careful critique by reviewers is essential.</p> Having recently taken on (partial) editorial responsibility for Linguistic Inquiry squibs recently, I’ve found myself having to confront a closely related issue. LI in general does not use blind review, i.e. papers are sent for review with the author’s name visible to the reviewers. The identity of reviewers, however, is not necessarily revealed to the author.

Somewhere along the way, the squibs section was modified to allow authors to choose whether or not they would like their squib submission to be reviewed blindly or not.

As I’ve been trying to develop my own position on this practice, the reality described in the discussion Eric points us to is of course relevant. That is, to what extent does any journal anymore actually have blind reviews, given the internet, etc?

I don’t have much in the way of conclusions to offer on this, but I am very interested in hearing the perspectives of others. I have found that the situation influences me as an editor in at least one important way, and that is that I prefer not to use relatively “young” scholars as reviewers for papers by senior people, because it seems to be difficult for them to be critical at the appropriate level; given the rejection rate we have to maintain, careful critique by reviewers is essential.

]]>