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

ABSTRACT

Purpose

To assess whether the type of peer-review (single-blinded vs double-blinded) has an impact on nationality representation in journals.

Methods

A cross-sectional study analyzing the top 10 nationalities contributing to the number of articles across 16 ophthalmology journals.

Results

There was no difference in the percentage of articles published from the journal’s country of origin between the top single-blind journals and double-blind journals (SB = 42.0%, DB = 26.6%, p = .49), but there was a significant difference between the percentage of articles from the US (SB = 48.0%, DB = 22.8%, p = .02). However, there was no difference for both country of origin (SB = 38.0%, DB = 26.6%, p = .43) and articles from the US (SB = 35.0%, DB = 22.8%, p = .21) when assessing the top eight double-blind journals matched with single-blind journals of a similar impact factor. The US (n = 16, 100%) and England (n = 16, 100%) most commonly made the top 10 lists for article contribution. This held true even for journals established outside the United States (US=11/12, England = 11/12).

Conclusions

There was no 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.

KEYWORDS:

• Peer review
• disparity
• masking