Blind Peer Reviews: Truth or a Myth Waiting to be Busted!!
Year: 2025
Type: article
Abstract: Peer review is the critical assessment of manuscripts by experts in a particular field who are expected to do so in an unbiased and independent fashion. The opinion of experts helps editors to assess the merit and suitability of the manuscripts for publication in their journals. This is considered to be vital to scientific research and its dissemination through publication.[1] Peer review has traditionally been blinded to ensure it to be unbiased which may be single blind or double blind. But is blind peer review really the best form of manuscript review for journals of the medical scientific community? This question deserves some serious thought as the blinding which is believed to be the basic premise for ensuring a fair review is itself difficult or almost impossible in small scientific communities where all researchers may be aware of each others’ work since planning and execution stage. Moreover, most manuscripts related to original work may be presented in some form or the other in national or international forums, “unblinding” the researcher’s identity and affiliation. This is especially for manuscripts pertaining to niche subspecialties in which the coterie of researchers is small and concentrated at a few well-known tertiary care centers. This can potentially usher in personal biases and prejudices both against the scientific merit of the work as well as the researcher and influences the final fate of the manuscript. Sometimes, the reviewer’s comments may even be harsh enough to scare away and scar the researcher’s psyche despite the journals and their editorial teams trying to maintain a fair reviewing process. The debate on the pros and cons of blind versus open review rages and concerns have been flagged by various experts.[2] A way forward maybe to try to seek out reviewers from outside the community maybe from institutes abroad. This itself may not be able to ensure blinding in toto but may at least be able to remove some element of prejudice. Furthermore, open or hybrid reviews should be considered for manuscripts from very small specialties. And maybe in time, artificial intelligence tools can even be designed to score the manuscript reviews by experts on a specially designed scale for personal bias!! Until then, “may the best man win and may the good men continue to strive to ensure that” (no pun or gender bias intended). Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.
Source: Indian Pediatrics Case Reports
Author: Suprita Kalra
Language: English
Subfield: History and Philosophy of Science
Field: Arts and Humanities
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: diamond
OpenAlex ID: W4410370659