The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review
Rebecca Blank ()
American Economic Review, 1991, vol. 81, issue 5, 1041-67
The results from a randomized experiment conducted at the American Economic Review on the effects of double-blind versus single-blind peer reviewing on acceptance rates and referee rating indicate that acceptance rates are lower and referees are more critical when the reviewer is unaware of the author's identity. These patterns are not significantly different between female and male authors. Authors at top-ranked universities and at colleges and low-ranked universities are largely unaffected by the different reviewing practices, but the authors at near-top-ranked universities and at nonacademic institutions have lower acceptance rates under double-blind reviewing. Copyright 1991 by American Economic Association.
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (122) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282%2819911 ... O%3B2-V&origin=repec full text (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to JSTOR subscribers. See http://www.jstor.org for details.
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:81:y:1991:i:5:p:1041-67
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
Access Statistics for this article
American Economic Review is currently edited by Esther Duflo
More articles in American Economic Review from American Economic Association Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Michael P. Albert ().