Peer Review: Does Blinding Really Make a Difference?

Scientists often rely on peer reviews to check their work. But does it matter if they know who wrote the paper? Some think yes, others no. Let's dive in! Imagine two types of peer reviews: single blind, where only the reviewer is hidden, and double blind, where neither knows who's who. A special study, called difference-in-difference, was done to see how these differ. Researchers looked at over 7, 000 academic papers. They found that double-blind reviews led to slightly more positive ratings. Sounds good, right? But hold on! It also meant that papers from big-name universities got lower scores. Weird, huh? Now, let's think about why. Maybe reviewers thought they were being tougher because they didn't know the author. Or maybe they assumed the paper was from a smaller school, so they eased up. Who knows? But here’s an interesting bit. When the reviewers were warned about potential biases, the difference between single and double blind disappeared. That's a big deal! It means being aware can wipe out the problem. So, what's the takeaway? Blinding might have some effects, but being aware of biases is key. And maybe, just maybe, we should think harder about what's fair in our reviews.