Double-blind peer review is detrimental to scientific integrity
2025/01/06 by Christopher A. Mebane · 5 voices
Medicine · Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics · Decision Sciences · #Ethics in Clinical Research #Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare #Academic Publishing and Open Access
paper · pdf · doi:10.1093/etojnl/vgae046
Abstract
I make six arguments for why double-blind peer review practices increase vulnerability to scientific integrity lapses over more transparent peer review practices: (1) obscuring data from reviewers is detrimental; (2) obscuring sponsorship makes bias harder to detect; (3) author networks can be revealing; (4) undue trust and responsibility are placed on editors; (5) double-blind reviews are not really all that blind; and (6) willful blindness is not the answer to prestige bias. I offer an alternative approach that could provide a more transparent approach for improving scientific integrity and equity in publishing.
Citations
Discussions
- Double-blind peer review is detrimental to scientific integrity. Openness in the peer review process helps to expose human biases and allows them to be discussed publicly.
doi.org/10.1093/etoj... [bsky, 11 points, 2 comments]
- In a new paper, I make six arguments for why double-blind peer review practices increase vulnerability to scientific integrity lapses over more transparent peer review practices:
doi.org/10.1093/etoj. [bsky, 10 points, 5 comments]
- 🔍 Is double-blind peer review really the gold standard for scientific integrity? Christopher Mebane argues it may actually obscure bias and data, risking the rigor of research. Transparency, he claim [bsky, 7 points, 1 comments]
- quite.
h/t @hertzpodcast.bsky.social
source doi.org/10.1093/etoj... [bsky, 5 points, 0 comments]
- En este art. @cmebane.bsky.social presenta 6 argumentos por los que las revisiones de doble ciego aumentan el riesgo de erosionar la integridad de la #ciencia frente a las fortalezas de las revisiones [bsky, 1 points, 0 comments]
Related