Economics at your fingertips  

Peer review: either open it fully or blind it wholly

Khaled Moustafa

No 879z2, from Center for Open Science

Abstract: To reduce the bias in peer review, the peer review should be either fully open, so that all the parties involved in (authors and reviewers) are known to each other or, alternatively, wholly blinded where the identities of all the parties are undisclosed to each other. As such, the peer review would be symmetrical for all peers; otherwise the term “peer” in ‘peer review’ would not make much sense because “peer” means “equal” involving “equal” treatment.

Date: 2018-01-30
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-sog
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link)

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:

DOI: 10.31219/

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in from Center for Open Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by OSF ().

Page updated 2020-01-26
Handle: RePEc:osf:arabix:879z2