Abstract
Peer review may be “single-blind,” in which reviewers are aware of the names and affiliations of paper authors, or “double-blind,” in which this information is hidden. Noting that computer science research often appears first or exclusively in peer-reviewed conferences rather than journals, we study these two reviewing models in the context of the 10th Association for Computing Machinery International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, a highly selective venue (15.6% acceptance rate) in which expert committee members review full-length submissions for acceptance. We present a controlled experiment in which four committee members review each paper. Two of these four reviewers are drawn from a pool of committee members with access to author information; the other two are drawn from a disjoint pool without such access. This information asymmetry persists through the process of bidding for papers, reviewing papers, and entering scores. Reviewers in the single-blind condition typically bid for 22% fewer papers and preferentially bid for papers from top universities and companies. Once papers are allocated to reviewers, single-blind reviewers are significantly more likely than their double-blind counterparts to recommend for acceptance papers from famous authors, top universities, and top companies. The estimated odds multipliers are tangible, at 1.63, 1.58, and 2.10, respectively.
Funder
National Science Foundation of China
Publisher
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Reference30 articles.
1. Tomkins A Zhang M Heavlin WD (2017) Single versus double blind reviewing at WSDM 2017. arXiv:1702.00502.
2. Lamont M (2010) How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment (Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, MA).
3. Single-versus double-blind reviewing: An analysis of the literature;Snodgrass;ACM Sigmod Rec,2006
4. Largent EA Snodgrass RT (2016) Blind peer review by academic journals. Blinding as a Solution to Bias: Strengthening Biomedical Science, Forensic Science, and Law, eds Robertson C Kesselheim A (Academic, Cambridge, MA), pp 75–95.
5. Editorial: Single- versus double-blind reviewing;Snodgrass;ACM Trans Database Syst (TODS),2007
Cited by
328 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献