Standard

Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers? / Seeber, Marco; Bacchelli, Alberto.

In: Scientometrics: an international journal for all quantitative aspects of the science of science, communication in science and science policy, Vol. 113, No. 1, 2017, p. 567-585.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Harvard

Seeber, M & Bacchelli, A 2017, 'Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?', Scientometrics: an international journal for all quantitative aspects of the science of science, communication in science and science policy, vol. 113, no. 1, pp. 567-585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2264-7

APA

Seeber, M., & Bacchelli, A. (2017). Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers? Scientometrics: an international journal for all quantitative aspects of the science of science, communication in science and science policy, 113(1), 567-585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2264-7

Vancouver

Seeber M, Bacchelli A. Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers? Scientometrics: an international journal for all quantitative aspects of the science of science, communication in science and science policy. 2017;113(1):567-585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2264-7

Author

Seeber, Marco ; Bacchelli, Alberto. / Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?. In: Scientometrics: an international journal for all quantitative aspects of the science of science, communication in science and science policy. 2017 ; Vol. 113, No. 1. pp. 567-585.

BibTeX

@article{b76a81e83d7045f880844cdb62391c6b,
title = "Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?",
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{\textquoteright} 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.",
keywords = "Bias, Computer science, Double blind review, In-group out-group, Newcomers, Single blind review",
author = "Marco Seeber and Alberto Bacchelli",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1007/s11192-017-2264-7",
language = "English",
volume = "113",
pages = "567--585",
journal = "Scientometrics: an international journal for all quantitative aspects of the science of science, communication in science and science policy",
issn = "0138-9130",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?

AU - Seeber, Marco

AU - Bacchelli, Alberto

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Bias

KW - Computer science

KW - Double blind review

KW - In-group out-group

KW - Newcomers

KW - Single blind review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85014275377&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:b76a81e8-3d70-45f8-8084-4cdb62391c6b

U2 - 10.1007/s11192-017-2264-7

DO - 10.1007/s11192-017-2264-7

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85014275377

VL - 113

SP - 567

EP - 585

JO - Scientometrics: an international journal for all quantitative aspects of the science of science, communication in science and science policy

JF - Scientometrics: an international journal for all quantitative aspects of the science of science, communication in science and science policy

SN - 0138-9130

IS - 1

ER -

ID: 13607733