Double blinding in peer review: is it worth the hype?

Title: Double blinding in peer review: is it worth the hype?
Authors: Suen, Colin
Date: 2014-05-07
Abstract: INTRODUCTION Without a doubt, peer review is the measuring stick by which science is judged. Peer review is a longstanding tradition in academic circles as the standard practice for evaluating articles for publication, grants and academic promotions. The term itself conjures up certain connotations and mixed emotions. Knowing that a body of work has successfully gone through peer review immediately increases credibility and, although academics would be hesitant to confess, it is too frequently unquestioned. A recent article by John Bohannon in Science tells the story of how his bogus paper full of glaring fatal flaws was accepted by an astonishing 157 out of 255 open-access “peer reviewed” journals [1], casting doubt on the level of scrutiny from journals claiming to perform peer review. Perhaps it is time to cast aside our blind faith and understand the limitations of peer review.
CollectionJournal Médical de l'Université d'Ottawa (JMUO) // University of Ottawa Journal of Medicine (UOJM)