Publish or perish - part 3: the problems with blind review

When someone submits a research paper to a peer-reviewed journal, the editor sends the paper to several people in that person's field of interest who have some knowledge of the topic being written about. These people may be members of the editorial board or they may be guest reviewers (people not on the actual editorial board but who have specialized knowledge on a certain subject). The reviewers have usually authored numerous research publications, making them suitable to analyze and criticize submitted manuscripts. I have served as a guest reviewer for the top journals in my field and have found the process very interesting and time consuming -- if you are going to do a good job.

There are two main ways that an article will be reviewed. There is either a blind review or a non-blinded review. In a non-blinded review, the identity of the authors is known to the reviewers. In a blind review, the identity of the authors is kept secret. Blind review is preferable for many reasons. You would be surprised how much of a small world it is when it comes to one's scientific specialty area. Blind review is an attempt to reduce potential bias on the part of the reviewer. That is, articles are supposed to be accepted based on their scientific merits -- not based on who you do or do not know.

So here is the little secret about blind review -- there are plenty of ways around it. Let me give you two of the most common techniques used to get around blind review. Let's say Dr. Smithers is well-known for his research on Alzheimer's disease. He submits a study for publication and while writing it, he lists a disproportionate number of references that he authored. Any reviewer will likely conclude that the article was authored by Dr. Smithers, particularly if the conclusions are described as supporting the prior work of Dr. Smithers. Now, Dr. Smithers is no fool. Dr. Smithers knows Dr. Franklin, the editor of one of the major neurology journals. So before Dr. Smithers sends the article out, he sends an email to Dr. Franklin letting him know to "keep a lookout" for his article. Guess who decides which sub-editors will review the paper? You guessed it -- Dr. Franklin does. And guess what else? Dr. Franklin knows full well which sub-editors will give a very thorough and intense review and which will give a cursory review and likely recommend accepting the paper. If Dr. Franklin feels like doing Dr. Smithers a favor, he will send the paper to the more lenient reviewers. In the end, Dr. Franklin is also within his rights as the main editor to override the recommendations of the reviewers and publish the paper no matter what. It just goes to show you -- whenever there are people, there will be politics. So while blind review is a good idea in theory, there are plenty of loopholes to get around it if you are savvy and political enough. Click here for the next post.