Impact of author characteristics on outcomes of single- versus double-blind peer review: a systematic review of comparative studies in scientific abstracts and publications

Vasiliki P. Giannakakos, Troy S. Karanfilian, Antonios D. Dimopoulos and Anne Barmettler ()
Additional contact information
Vasiliki P. Giannakakos: Montefiore Medical Center / Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Troy S. Karanfilian: Montefiore Medical Center / Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Antonios D. Dimopoulos: Montefiore Medical Center / Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Anne Barmettler: Montefiore Medical Center / Albert Einstein College of Medicine

Scientometrics, 2025, vol. 130, issue 1, No 15, 399-421

Abstract: Abstract The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the role of double-blind (DB) peer review on bias against authors when compared to single-blind (SB) peer review in scientific publications. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a search of databases including Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science, without language or date restrictions, was conducted to identify original research studies comparing peer-review outcomes between DB and SB methods based on any of the following author characteristics: gender, race, geographic location, personal prestige, institutional prestige. Studies were ranked Level I, II, or III for quality of evidence based on a modified version of the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence. Of 29 studies included, five level I studies, the highest quality evidence, showed that in SB peer review, the following author characteristics were associated with more positive outcomes: male gender, White race, location of the US or North America, well-published or known in their field, or affiliation with prestigious institutions. The evidence of whether DB peer review resulted in better outcomes for authors lacking these characteristics was more discordant, possibly due to lack of effective blinding or due to unblinded editor decisions. However, if bias reduction is defined as elimination of advantages afforded to only certain types of authors, DB peer review should be considered.

Keywords: Peer review; Bias; Double-blind peer review; Single-blind peer review (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Y8 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-05213-x Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05213-x

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11192

DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05213-x

Access Statistics for this article

Scientometrics is currently edited by Wolfgang Glänzel

More articles in Scientometrics from Springer, Akadémiai Kiadó
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().