Double-blind peer review is detrimental to scientific integrity.

IF 3.6 4区环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1093/etojnl/vgae046

Christopher A Mebane

引用次数: 0

Abstract

I make six arguments for why double-blind peer review practices increase vulnerability to scientific integrity lapses over more transparent peer review practices: (1) obscuring data from reviewers is detrimental; (2) obscuring sponsorship makes bias harder to detect; (3) author networks can be revealing; (4) undue trust and responsibility are placed on editors; (5) double-blind reviews are not really all that blind; and (6) willful blindness is not the answer to prestige bias. I offer an alternative approach that could provide a more transparent approach for improving scientific integrity and equity in publishing.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 环境科学-毒理学

CiteScore

7.40

自引率

9.80%

发文量

265

审稿时长

3.4 months

期刊介绍： The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) publishes two journals: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (ET&C) and Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry is dedicated to furthering scientific knowledge and disseminating information on environmental toxicology and chemistry, including the application of these sciences to risk assessment.[...] Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry is interdisciplinary in scope and integrates the fields of environmental toxicology; environmental, analytical, and molecular chemistry; ecology; physiology; biochemistry; microbiology; genetics; genomics; environmental engineering; chemical, environmental, and biological modeling; epidemiology; and earth sciences. ET&C seeks to publish papers describing original experimental or theoretical work that significantly advances understanding in the area of environmental toxicology, environmental chemistry and hazard/risk assessment. Emphasis is given to papers that enhance capabilities for the prediction, measurement, and assessment of the fate and effects of chemicals in the environment, rather than simply providing additional data. The scientific impact of papers is judged in terms of the breadth and depth of the findings and the expected influence on existing or future scientific practice. Methodological papers must make clear not only how the work differs from existing practice, but the significance of these differences to the field. Site-based research or monitoring must have regional or global implications beyond the particular site, such as evaluating processes, mechanisms, or theory under a natural environmental setting.