[Journal] Peer Review: Blind?

[Dan Putler]

Double blind is the case where the reviewer does not know who the
authors of article are, and the authors do not know who their reviewers
are. This is typical review process for academic journals (at least in
the social sciences). Single blind is where the reviewers know who the
article authors are, but the authors do not know who the reviewers are.
I've never been part of a single blind review process, and I've seen my
share from both sides.

Dan

On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 08:23 +0200, Micha Silver wrote:
> On 09/02/2010 03:31, Daniel Ames wrote:
> > Actually I think that was my question (or both of us). I agree though
> > that blind is a good idea - particularly in our small community. This
> > allows a reviewer to give more constructive critiques than he/she
> > might otherwise... -Dan
> >
> >    
> I seem to recall that we discussed this question about a year (?) ago. 
> THere's something called "double blind" which I think we thought was 
> unnecessary.
> 
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Sunburned Surveyor
> > <sunburned.surveyor at gmail.com>  wrote:
> >    
> >> Rafal raised and important question that I wanted to bring before the
> >> group. Do we want our peer reivews to be "blind"? I'm not an expert,
> >> but I believe this means the author receives the peer review comments
> >> without identifying the reviewer. It sounds like this is pretty
> >> standard practice.
> >>
> >> Is that how we want to operate the peer review portion of the Journal,
> >> or is there another model that people want to follow?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Landon
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> newsletter mailing list
> >> newsletter at lists.osgeo.org
> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/newsletter
> >>
> >>      
> >
> >
> >    
> 
> 
-- 
Dan Putler
Sauder School of Business
University of British Columbia