Here are a few scenarios:

* The research topic concerns a public website. The website identifies the authors. The paper makes no sense without explicitly identifying the website. Thus, authors should be able to request single-blind review. Note that this scenario very much applies to this entire discussion of a new research journal that uses wiki-based research development. I don't know if you caught Kerry Raymond's comment on this thread (I copy it below), which explains this point very succinctly.

* Authors have posted a working paper which has been on the web for a long time, and is known to most researchers in that field of interest (i.e. most potential and qualified reviewers for the peer-reviewed version). In this case, I would think that reviewers should not be excluded for no reason other than they know the authors' identity. One of the most backward policies I've ever seen related to this is JIBS's policy to protect double-blind review: "Authors should also not post their submitted manuscript (including working papers and prior drafts) on websites where it could be easily discovered by potential reviewers." [1] Apparently, they consider double-blind review a more sacred ideal than early dissemination of research through working papers.

* The research critically involves a multimedia artifact, such as a video, that cannot be easily be submitted as supporting materials for peer review. The video is better posted on a website. Here's a case of requested "gymnastics" I've seen in order to protect double-blind peer review even in such cases: "We ask each author to create his/her own account with an open access provider of choice (e.g., linked video could be hosted in Vimeo or YouTube).  Please use a pseudo user name in order to maintain anonymity during the review process." [2]

Although I do believe in the benefits of double-blind review (I'll send a separate post with a few citations), in my own research I am increasingly confronted with the fact that new approaches to research that favour openness and mass collaboration are fundamentally in conflict with the idea of anonymity in the identity of the authors of a manuscript submitted for peer review. Personally, I prefer to forge ahead with innovative modes of research conduct, even if double-blind review is sacrificed. For me, a perfect compromise is to default to double-blind, but fall back to single-blind when the nature of the research project calls for it.

~ Chitu


[1] http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jibs/author_instructions.html#Ethical-guidelines
[2] http://icis2011.aisnet.org/Paper_Submission.html#B


Dariusz Jemielniak a écrit :
just out of curiosity, what could be the reasonable expected purposes for requesting a single-blind review instead of a standard double-blind in your model? 

best,

dj


On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:56 AM, Chitu Okoli <Chitu.Okoli@concordia.ca> wrote:
Actually, I think it is more reasonable to use double-blind by default unless authors request single-blind. If single-blind were the default, it would be difficult to request double-blind as exceptions:

* If there is a "big name" researcher who wants to take advantage of his/her reputation, he/she would not request double-blind.
* If there is a "big name" researcher who is modest and does not think highly of himself/herself, he/she would not request double-blind.
* If there is a minority or woman researcher afraid of discrimination, if he/she requested double-blind, the reviewers would reasonably guess that the author(s) are minorities or women.

Thus, I think double-blind as a default for everyone with single-blind as special exception would be the more practical and fairer general policy. With the increase of preprints and working papers (e.g. arXiv and SSRN), I think author anonymity is becoming increasingly impractical.

In any case, these comments mainly apply to social science journals; I still think that single-blind makes more sense for computer science journals.

~ Chitu


Kerry Raymond a écrit :
 
I would note that the use of 1) would render double-blind irrelevant in 2). We would all know ...


On 06/11/2012, at 6:05 AM, "Kerry Raymond" <kerry.raymond@gmail.com> wrote:


I think two things can be done in parallel.

1. Allow folks to create descriptions of research in progress on the wiki,
which can be progressively updated. This enables others to make suggestions
on methodology, give feedback on drafts of papers and so forth. Open and
collaborative and experimental in the meta-sense. Clearly many on this list
desire to experiment with new ways of working.

2. Have a more formal traditional review process, so that the journal mets
the criteria for "reputable" that is important for people's CVs, tenure,
promotion and so forth. As much as many of this don't like this way of
working, it is the reality for earning your salary.