Abstract:BackgroundDouble-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. The aims of this study are to analyse the demographics of corresponding authors choosing double-blind peer review and to identify differences in the editorial outcome of manuscripts depending on their review model.MethodsData includes 128,454 manuscripts received between March 2015 and February 2017 by 25 Nature-branded journals. We investigated the uptake of double-blind review in relation to journal tier, as well as gender, country, and institutional prestige of the corresponding author. We then studied the manuscripts’ editorial outcome in relation to review model and author’s characteristics. The gender (male, female, or NA) of the corresponding authors was determined from their first name using a third-party service (Gender API). The prestige of the corresponding author’s institutions was measured from the data of the Global Research Identifier Database (GRID) by dividing institutions in three prestige groups with reference to the 2016 Times Higher Education (THE) ranking. We employed descriptive statistics for data exploration, and we tested our hypotheses using Pearson’s chi-square and binomial tests. We also performed logistic regression modelling with author update, out-to-review, and acceptance as response, and journal tier, author gender, author country, and institution as predictors.ResultsAuthor uptake for double-blind submissions was 12% (12,631 out of 106,373). We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type (p value < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.054, df = 2). We had gender information for 50,533 corresponding authors and found no statistically significant difference in the distribution of peer review model between males and females (p value = 0.6179). We had 58,920 records with normalised institutions and a THE rank, and we found that corresponding authors from the less prestigious institutions are more likely to choose double-blind review (p value < 0.001, df = 2, Cramer’s V = 0.106). In the ten countries with the highest number of submissions, we found a large significant association between country and review type (p value < 0.001, df = 10, Cramer’s V = 0.189). The outcome both at first decision and post review is significantly more negative (i.e. a higher likelihood for rejection) for double-blind than single-blind papers (p value < 0.001, df = 1, Cramer’s V = 0.112 for first decision; p value < 0.001; df = 1, Cramer’s V = 0.082 for post-review decision).ConclusionsThe proportion of authors that choose double-blind review is higher when they submit to more prestigious journals, they are affiliated with less prestigious institutions, or they are from specific countries; the double-blind option is also linked to less successful editorial outcomes.

Acceptance Rates in Physical Review Letters: No Seasonal Bias

Correlations between submission and acceptance of papers in peer review journals

Quantifying the distribution of editorial power and manuscript decision bias at the mega-journal PLOS ONE

Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics

The Leaky Pipeline in Physics Publishing

Does publicity in the science press drive citations? A vindication of peer review

Journal Status Report 2023

Are Psychology Journals Anti-replication? A Snapshot of Editorial Practices

Association between author metadata and acceptance: A feature-rich, matched observational study of a corpus of ICLR submissions between 2017-2022

Examining Implicit Bias Differences in Pediatric Surgical Fellowship Letters of Recommendation Using Natural Language Processing

Assessing Gender Bias in Particle Physics and Social Science Recommendations for Academic Jobs

The correlation between editorial delay and the ratio of highly cited papers in Nature, Science and Physical Review Letters

Preliminary evidence of linguistic bias in academic reviewing

Does the use of open, non-anonymous peer review in scholarly publishing introduce bias? Evidence from the F1000 post-publication open peer review publishing model

Why did we reject your paper?

Estimating the Causal Effect of Early ArXiving on Paper Acceptance

Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study

Gender inequality and self-publication patterns among scientific editors

Streetlight effect in PubPeer comments: are Open Access publications more scrutinized?

Can the Replication Rate Tell Us About Publication Bias?

Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups