The use of double anonymity in peer review: a decision whose time has come?

Richard J C Brown
{"title":"The use of double anonymity in peer review: a decision whose time has come?","authors":"Richard J C Brown","doi":"10.1080/10529410500481983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The process of peer review for submissions to scientific journals is a well-established and widely used procedure. However, there may still be room for improvement in the procedural aspects of peer review. Advantages and disadvantages of the current system, against the introduction of systems using either no anonymity, or double anonymity, are assessed. Recommendations to improve the robustness and fairness of the peer review process are proffered for the reader's consideration.</p>","PeriodicalId":77339,"journal":{"name":"Quality assurance (San Diego, Calif.)","volume":"11 2","pages":"103-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10529410500481983","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality assurance (San Diego, Calif.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10529410500481983","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

The process of peer review for submissions to scientific journals is a well-established and widely used procedure. However, there may still be room for improvement in the procedural aspects of peer review. Advantages and disadvantages of the current system, against the introduction of systems using either no anonymity, or double anonymity, are assessed. Recommendations to improve the robustness and fairness of the peer review process are proffered for the reader's consideration.

在同行评议中使用双重匿名:这个决定的时机到了?
对提交给科学期刊的论文进行同行评议是一项完善且广泛使用的程序。但是,在同行审查的程序方面可能仍有改进的余地。与引入无匿名或双重匿名系统相比,评估了当前系统的优点和缺点。为提高同行评议过程的稳健性和公平性提供了建议,供读者参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信