Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Blind Procedures02:07

Blind Procedures

13.7K
Ideally, the people who observe and record the children’s behavior are unaware of who was assigned to the experimental or control group, in order to control for experimenter bias. Experimenter bias refers to the possibility that a researcher’s expectations might skew the results of the study. Remember, conducting an experiment requires a lot of planning, and the people involved in the research project have a vested interest in supporting their hypotheses. If the observers knew which...
13.7K
Review and Preview01:10

Review and Preview

8.6K
In statistics, several tools are used to interpret the data. Measures of central tendency represent the characteristics of the data, such as mean, median, and mode. Additionally, measures of variance like standard deviation and range are used to find the spread of data from the mean. Relative standing measures the distance between data locations. Commonly used measures of relative standings are percentile, z score, and quartiles.
Percentiles are a type of fractile that partition data into...
8.6K
Review and Preview01:13

Review and Preview

11.7K
Data are individual items of information obtained from a population or sample. Data may be classified as qualitative (categorical), quantitative continuous, or quantitative discrete. Because it is not practical to measure the entire population in a study, researchers use samples to represent the population. A random sample is a representative group from the population chosen by using a method that gives each individual in the population an equal chance of being included in the sample. Random...
11.7K
Blinding01:11

Blinding

4.0K
Blinding is a commonly used method of not telling participants which treatment a subject is receiving. Blinding is a critical part of a randomized control trial or RCT. It reduces the bias that affects the results. In an RCT, blinding is used in the form of a placebo. A placebo effect occurs when untreated subjects falsely believe they have received the treatment and report improved symptoms. A placebo or a dummy treatment is administered to subjects to negate the bias caused by such an effect.
4.0K
Feedback Inhibition00:46

Feedback Inhibition

57.5K
Biochemical reactions are occurring constantly in cells, converting starting substances to different products, usually with the help of enzymes that speed the reactions. Without enzymes, it would take far too long for most reactions to occur to be useful to the cell!
57.5K
Halo Effect01:27

Halo Effect

534
The halo effect is a cognitive bias in which an individual's overall impression influences judgments about their specific traits. This psychological phenomenon leads people to associate positive characteristics with those they perceive as generally good and negative characteristics with those they view as bad. This effect is particularly influential in social perception, professional evaluations, and decision-making processes.The Psychological Basis of the Halo EffectThe halo effect is rooted...
534

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Simplifying software compliance: AI technologies in drafting technical documentation for the AI Act.

Empirical software engineering·2025
Same author

On Refining the SZZ Algorithm with Bug Discussion Data.

Empirical software engineering·2024
Same author

Visualising data science workflows to support third-party notebook comprehension: an empirical study.

Empirical software engineering·2023
Same author

Workflow analysis of data science code in public GitHub repositories.

Empirical software engineering·2022
Same author

The evolution of the code during review: an investigation on review changes.

Empirical software engineering·2022
Same author

The effects of change decomposition on code review-a controlled experiment.

PeerJ. Computer science·2021
Same journal

Ordering matters in shared authorship: a response to Decius and Schilbach.

Scientometrics·2026
Same journal

Divided by discipline? A systematic literature review on the quantification of online sexism and misogyny using a semi-automated approach.

Scientometrics·2025
Same journal

Science diplomacy: A global research field? Findings from a bibliometric analysis of the science diplomacy scholarship of the past twenty years.

Scientometrics·2025
Same journal

Are questionable research practices considered a successful career strategy? A novel implementation of the implicit association test.

Scientometrics·2025
Same journal

The underexplored effects of economic transition on intellectual property rights protection: An economic geography perspective.

Scientometrics·2025
Same journal

Towards multiple ontologies in science mapping. A tribute to Loet Leydesdorff.

Scientometrics·2025
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Feb 20, 2026

A Method for Investigating Change Blindness in Pigeons Columba Livia
06:14

A Method for Investigating Change Blindness in Pigeons Columba Livia

Published on: September 7, 2018

6.8K

Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?

Marco Seeber1, Alberto Bacchelli2

  • 1Ghent, Belgium.

Scientometrics
|October 24, 2017
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Single blind review (SBR) in computer science conferences may favor established researchers over newcomers, potentially hindering innovation. Double blind review (DBR) might offer a fairer system for diverse scientific contributions.

Keywords:
BiasComputer scienceDouble blind reviewIn-group out-groupNewcomersSingle blind review

More Related Videos

Author Spotlight: Exploring Glial Influence in Experience-Dependent Synaptic Pruning During Critical Periods
07:13

Author Spotlight: Exploring Glial Influence in Experience-Dependent Synaptic Pruning During Critical Periods

Published on: March 1, 2024

1.2K
Assessing Early Stage Open-Angle Glaucoma in Patients by Isolated-Check Visual Evoked Potential
07:11

Assessing Early Stage Open-Angle Glaucoma in Patients by Isolated-Check Visual Evoked Potential

Published on: May 25, 2020

6.9K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Feb 20, 2026

A Method for Investigating Change Blindness in Pigeons Columba Livia
06:14

A Method for Investigating Change Blindness in Pigeons Columba Livia

Published on: September 7, 2018

6.8K
Author Spotlight: Exploring Glial Influence in Experience-Dependent Synaptic Pruning During Critical Periods
07:13

Author Spotlight: Exploring Glial Influence in Experience-Dependent Synaptic Pruning During Critical Periods

Published on: March 1, 2024

1.2K
Assessing Early Stage Open-Angle Glaucoma in Patients by Isolated-Check Visual Evoked Potential
07:11

Assessing Early Stage Open-Angle Glaucoma in Patients by Isolated-Check Visual Evoked Potential

Published on: May 25, 2020

6.9K

Area of Science:

  • Computer Science
  • Bibliometrics
  • Scholarly Communication

Background:

  • Two primary peer review modes exist: double blind (DBR) and single blind (SBR).
  • SBR may introduce biases against authors based on gender, nationality, language, or institution prestige.
  • The impact of SBR on favoring established researchers over newcomers is under-researched.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate if single blind review (SBR) in computer science conferences favors established scholars over newcomers.
  • To assess the extent to which SBR, compared to double blind review (DBR), affects the proportion of contributions from new researchers.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of 21,535 computer science papers from 71 top conferences in 2014-2015.
  • Comparison of author demographics and publication patterns between SBR and DBR venues.
  • Focus on identifying and quantifying the participation of "newcomers" versus "reputed scholars".

Main Results:

  • Single blind review (SBR) conferences showed a lower proportion of contributions from newcomers.
  • This effect was particularly pronounced for newcomers with prior publishing experience in other conferences.
  • Findings suggest potential ingroup-outgroup dynamics in SBR that could stifle knowledge advancement.

Conclusions:

  • Single blind review (SBR) in computer science may disadvantage emerging researchers.
  • This bias could negatively impact scientific innovation and creativity by limiting exposure to new ideas.
  • Further research into peer review fairness and its effect on scientific progress is warranted.