Equity in science: advocating for a triple-blind review system

Brodie, Stephanie; Frainer, André; Pennino, María Grazia; Jiang, Shan; Kaikkonen, Laura; López, Jon; Ortega-Cisneros, Kelly; Peters, Carl A.; Selim, Samiya Ahmed; Văidianu, Natașa

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2021.07.011

Cited by 20 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such a transition requires changes to online software and journal policies, more editorial assistant work, and cooperation with publishing companies. 9 All of these changes are burdensome, costly, and time-consuming. a Nature permits authors to choose between single-vs double-anonymous review.…”

Section: Double-anonymous Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review in Urology Journals: What Is the Best Peer Review Model?

Kaplan-Marans

Khurgin

2023

Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Double-anonymous Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review in Urology Journals: What Is the Best Peer Review Model?

Kaplan-Marans

Khurgin

2023

Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…one in which authors and reviewers are not identified to one another) might aid in addressing such a situation, though some have recently advocated for a triple-blind systemi.e. one in which the journal editor is also not aware of author identity or affiliation until after a first decision has been made (Brodie et al 2021). Although there will always be some ability to make educated guesses regarding the identity of authors and reviewers, this would permit reviewers to be more vocally suspicious of scant evidence when extraordinary claims are made, regardless of who makes them, decreasing the likelihood of prestige and affiliation bias affecting reviewer and editor decisions (Tomkins et al 2017, Brodie et al 2021.…”

Section: Looking Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…one in which the journal editor is also not aware of author identity or affiliation until after a first decision has been made (Brodie et al 2021). Although there will always be some ability to make educated guesses regarding the identity of authors and reviewers, this would permit reviewers to be more vocally suspicious of scant evidence when extraordinary claims are made, regardless of who makes them, decreasing the likelihood of prestige and affiliation bias affecting reviewer and editor decisions (Tomkins et al 2017, Brodie et al 2021. Warding off positive media attention in such a scenario, however, may prove more difficult, because news of a species' rediscovery seems likely to be well received by the public and to generate revenue for media outlets.…”

Section: Looking Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The ongoing narrative of Ivory‐billed Woodpecker rediscovery and support for declaring the species extinct

Troy

Jones

2022

Ibis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Ivory‐billed Woodpecker Campephilus principalis was considered extinct by many until, in 2005, researchers announced its rediscovery in continental North America and released video evidence obtained from the state of Arkansas. This claim garnered worldwide media attention and sparked renewed interest in searching for and conserving the bird. Audio recordings from the same region, including sounds closely resembling the territorial double raps of Campephilus woodpeckers, were also released. Both the video and audio evidence, however, were challenged in several journal articles, though these critiques did not receive as much attention. We estimated that over 578 000 h were collectively spent searching for the species across the southeastern USA from 2004 to 2021, but these efforts failed to yield indisputable proof of the species' persistence. More than US$ 20.3 million in federal and state government funding was spent on the bird from 2005 to 2013, a sharp increase in expenditures from the years before the rediscovery announcement. Regardless of whether or not it was a reallocation of funds from other taxa, this money, along with other associated resources (e.g. time and human effort), would have undoubtedly benefited other underfunded threatened and endangered taxa had it not been spent on the woodpecker. Given the published criticisms and counterevidence, as well as the lack of definitive proof that the species still exists, it appears that this endeavour was driven largely by the narrative of rediscovery advanced by prominent researchers in ornithology, rather than the actual evidence, and that this probably helped to perpetuate the use of poor‐quality evidence in subsequent claims of the species' persistence. In 2021, the US Fish and Wildlife Service proposed an extinction declaration for the Ivory‐billed Woodpecker. Based on available information, this decision seems logical, and would close this chapter on one of the biggest losses to North American avifauna in modern history.

show abstract

“…In the HKJLS, the Chief Editors process all the submissions to ensure the identities of the author(s) are masked, and then assign those articles to the four teams of editors (each led by a Senior Editor). Therefore, among the Senior and Associate Editors, the peer review process can be seen as ‘triple‐blind’ where the authors' identities are completely masked (Brodie et al, 2021). Each submission is reviewed by three student editors.…”

Section: The Case Of Hong Kongmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing the student‐oriented model of academic publishing: The case of legal studies in Hong Kong

Lui

2022

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Key points The Hong Kong Journal of Legal Studies and the City University of Hong Kong Law Review provide valuable case studies of the student‐oriented model in the Hong Kong legal academic publishing context. The three essential features of student‐oriented publishing are (1) run by students; (2) managed by students; and (3) a focus on the learning experience of student editors and authors. The recommended features of student‐oriented publishing are (1) peer review by students; and (2) a focus on publication of student‐authored articles. Student‐oriented publishing encourages students to publish as authors and equips student editors with professional and personal skills. Student‐oriented law journals benefit both the professional and the academic communities. This is less apparent in Hong Kong due to the local publishing landscape and a weak academic–practice connection. Student‐oriented publishing can thrive in its own right and is complementary, rather than inferior, to publications run by senior academics and practitioners.

show abstract

Equity in science: advocating for a triple-blind review system

Cited by 20 publications

References 15 publications

Peer Review in Urology Journals: What Is the Best Peer Review Model?

Peer Review in Urology Journals: What Is the Best Peer Review Model?

The ongoing narrative of Ivory‐billed Woodpecker rediscovery and support for declaring the species extinct

Advancing the student‐oriented model of academic publishing: The case of legal studies in Hong Kong

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About