CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22Publishing and Scholarly CommunicationAcademic Writing and PublishingPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Double-Blind Refereeing

Open access
Cox, David, Gleser, Leon, Perlman, Michael, Reid, Nancy, Roeder, Kathryn·1993·Statistical Science
DOI 10.1214/ss/1177010904
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Double-Blind Refereeing was presented to the IMS Council in August 1992. It summarizes arguments for and against blinding referees to the identity of the authors and suggests an experiment to evaluate the process.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1214/ss/1177010904

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Double-anonymizing the peer-review process would promote diverse points of view in journal output.

    “Double-anonymizing the peer-review process could also help level the playing field for academics from other marginalized groups, giving them a fairer chance to succeed, which, in turn, would promote diverse points of view in journal output and eventually expand the journal peer-reviewer pool to authors coming from such backgrounds (3–5, 19–23).”

    From Nobel and novice: Author prominence affects peer review (2022) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Advantages section (p. 1) argues that double-blind refereeing lets papers be judged without regard to an author’s rank, gender, institution, or seniority, supporting the proposed fairness mechanism. The paper does not say that this would promote diverse points of view in published journal output; the committee also says the benefits remain uncertain (p. 2). (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Double-anonymizing the peer-review process would eventually expand the journal peer-reviewer pool to authors from marginalized backgrounds.

    “Double-anonymizing the peer-review process could also help level the playing field for academics from other marginalized groups, giving them a fairer chance to succeed, which, in turn, would promote diverse points of view in journal output and eventually expand the journal peer-reviewer pool to authors coming from such backgrounds (3–5, 19–23).”

    From Nobel and novice: Author prominence affects peer review (2022) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Advantages section (p. 1) says double-blind refereeing allows papers to be judged without regard to author characteristics such as gender or rank, supporting the proposed fairer chance. The Gender Bias section (p. 6) also reports a higher acceptance rate for women after one association adopted it. Neither passage supports the further claim that this would diversify journal output or eventually expand the peer-reviewer pool to authors from marginalized backgrounds. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Double-anonymizing the peer-review process could help level the playing field for academics from marginalized groups, giving them a fairer chance to succeed.

    “Double-anonymizing the peer-review process could also help level the playing field for academics from other marginalized groups, giving them a fairer chance to succeed, which, in turn, would promote diverse points of view in journal output and eventually expand the journal peer-reviewer pool to authors coming from such backgrounds (3–5, 19–23).”

    From Nobel and novice: Author prominence affects peer review (2022) · cites this paper as [3]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. ADAIR (1982). Discussion of "Peer-review practices of psychological journals," by D. P. Peters and S. J. Ceci. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5.
  2. CicCHETTI, D. V. and ERoN, L. D. (1979). The reliability of manuscript reviewing for the Journal of Abnormal Psychology. In Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section 596-600. Amer. Statist. Assoc., Washington, D.C.
  3. GorDoN, M. D. (1980). The role of referees in scientific communication. In The Psychology of Written Communication (J. Hartley, ed.) 263–275. Kogan Page, London.
  4. HENDRick, C. (1977). Editorial comment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 3 1-2.
  5. McCARTNEY, J. L. (1973). Manuscript reviewing. Sociological Quarterly 14 290, 444-446.
  6. PETERs, D. P. and CECI, S. J. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (with discussion). The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 187-255.
  7. ToBAcí, E. (1980). ". . . that ye be judged." In An Evaluation of the Peer Review System in Psychological Research (J. Demarest, Chairman). Open Forum at the American Psychological Convention, Montreal.
  8. YoToPoULos, P. A. (1961). Institutional affiliation of the contributors to three professional journals. American Economic Review 51 665-670.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Cox, D., Gleser, L., Perlman, M., Reid, N., & Roeder, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Yale University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Statistical Science
Publisher
Institute of Mathematical Statistics
Published
1993-08-01
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
310-317
ISSN
  • 0883-4237 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-8745
DOI
10.1214/ss/1177010904
OpenAlex
W2016359003
Cited by
21
References
37
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2
FWCI
2.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Statistical Science (publishedVersion)
  • Project Euclid (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
peer review, author identity disclosure, journal editorial policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review