Single-Blind and Double-Blind Peer Review: Effects on National Representation

Abstract

AbstractBackground/ObjectivesTo assess whether the type of peer-review (single-blinded vs double-blinded) has an impact on nationality representation in journals.MethodsA cross-sectional study analyzing the top ten nationalities contributing to the number of articles across 16 ophthalmology journals.ResultsThere was no significant difference in the percentage of articles published from the journal’s country of origin between the top single-blind journals and top double-blind journals (SB= 42.0%, DB = 26.6%, p=0.49) but there was a significant difference between the percentage of articles from the US (SB=48.0%, DB=22.8%, p=0.02). However, there was no significant difference for both country of origin (SB =38.0%, DB =26.6%, p=0.43) and articles from the US (SB=35.0%, DB=22.8%, p=0.21) when assessing the top 8 double-blind journals matched with single-blind journals of a similar impact factor. The countries that most commonly made the top ten lists for highest number of articles were the US (n=16, 100%) and England (n=16, 100%). This held true even for journals established outside the United States (US=11/12, England=11/12).ConclusionsThere was no statistically significant difference in country-of-origin representation between single-blind journals and double-blind journals. However, higher income countries contributed most often to the journals studied even among journals based outside the US.