This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by GLEDITSCH, N. P. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Double-blind but More Transparent

Editor, Journal of Peace Research

Journal of Peace Research has now introduced `double-blind' or `masked' review procedures. In other words, the author's name and affiliation are removed from the manuscript. This article explains why we make this change now, why we did not make it before, and why the decision was not obvious. The main argument in favor of blinding is that the reviewer should judge the article on the basis of its merit rather than on the basis of the prior reputation or record of the author. However, the empirical evidence whether or not blinding makes any difference is mixed, and the practice varies greatly among quality journals. We make this change mainly because double-blind seems to be the accepted standard among journals that cater to the same readers and authors, and because we do not want there to be any doubt as to the journal's commitment to peer review. At the same time, we reiterate our commitment to transparency, by permitting referees to sign their reports if they want to, by letting the authors see all the referee reports, by copying the editorial correspondence to the reviewers, and by strengthening our data replication policies.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?