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
Bias01:22

Bias

7.4K
Bias refers to any tendency that prevents a question from being considered unprejudiced. In research, bias occurs when one outcome or answer is selected or encouraged over others in sampling or testing. Bias can occur during any research phase, including study design, data collection, analysis, and publication.
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...
7.4K
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
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches01:23

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

488
Biopharmaceutical studies constitute a vital field aiming to enhance drug delivery methods and refine therapeutic approaches, drawing upon diverse interdisciplinary knowledge. In research methodologies, the choice between controlled and non-controlled studies significantly influences the study's reliability and accuracy.
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
488
Bias in Epidemiological Studies01:29

Bias in Epidemiological Studies

1.4K
Biases can arise at various stages of research, from study design and data collection to analysis and interpretation. Recognizing and addressing these biases is essential to ensure the validity and reliability of epidemiological findings.Broadly speaking, biases in epidemiology fall into three main categories: selection bias, information bias, and confounding. A more detailed description of possible biases is:  
1.4K
Group Design02:01

Group Design

10.9K
The most basic experimental design involves two groups: the experimental group and the control group. The two groups are designed to be the same except for one difference— experimental manipulation. The experimental group gets the experimental manipulation—that is, the treatment or variable being tested—and the control group does not. Since experimental manipulation is the only difference between the experimental and control groups, we can be sure that any differences between...
10.9K

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

User choice, hidden gems, and the quadratic horizon.

PNAS nexus·2026
Same author

On the number of trials needed to distinguish similar alternatives.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America·2022
Same author

Reply to Bennett et al.: IJROBP study is consistent with our findings and offers insights on author preferences.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America·2018
Same author

Long-term outcome of combined liver-kidney transplantation: a single-center experience in China.

Hepato-gastroenterology·2008
Same author

Dolichol biosynthesis and its effects on the unfolded protein response and abiotic stress resistance in Arabidopsis.

The Plant cell·2008
Same author

In vitro interaction of terbinafine with itraconazole and amphotericin B against fungi causing chromoblastomycosis in China.

Medical mycology·2008

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Feb 18, 2026

Assessment of Mouse Judgment Bias through an Olfactory Digging Task
12:10

Assessment of Mouse Judgment Bias through an Olfactory Digging Task

Published on: March 4, 2022

3.1K

Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review.

Andrew Tomkins1, Min Zhang2, William D Heavlin3

  • 1Google, Inc., Mountain View, CA 94043; atomkins@gmail.com.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
|November 16, 2017
PubMed
Summary

Single-blind peer review favors papers from prestigious institutions and authors, unlike double-blind review. This bias was observed in a computer science conference, impacting acceptance recommendations.

Keywords:
double-blindpeer reviewscientific method

More Related Videos

Post-Movie Subliminal Measurement PMSM, for Investigating Implicit Social Bias
09:03

Post-Movie Subliminal Measurement PMSM, for Investigating Implicit Social Bias

Published on: February 29, 2020

6.3K
The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies
08:24

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies

Published on: August 25, 2023

1.2K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Feb 18, 2026

Assessment of Mouse Judgment Bias through an Olfactory Digging Task
12:10

Assessment of Mouse Judgment Bias through an Olfactory Digging Task

Published on: March 4, 2022

3.1K
Post-Movie Subliminal Measurement PMSM, for Investigating Implicit Social Bias
09:03

Post-Movie Subliminal Measurement PMSM, for Investigating Implicit Social Bias

Published on: February 29, 2020

6.3K
The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies
08:24

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies

Published on: August 25, 2023

1.2K

Area of Science:

  • Computer Science
  • Information Science
  • Scholarly Communication

Background:

  • Peer review is a cornerstone of academic publishing, with single-blind and double-blind being common models.
  • Computer science research is frequently disseminated through peer-reviewed conferences, making their review processes critical.
  • The Association for Computing Machinery International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining is a selective venue with a rigorous review process.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the impact of single-blind versus double-blind peer review on paper evaluation in computer science conferences.
  • To quantify potential biases introduced by author information in the peer review process.

Main Methods:

  • A controlled experiment was conducted during the 10th Association for Computing Machinery International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining.
  • Four committee members reviewed each paper: two with author information (single-blind) and two without (double-blind).
  • Information asymmetry regarding author identity was maintained throughout the bidding, reviewing, and scoring stages.

Main Results:

  • Single-blind reviewers bid on 22% fewer papers compared to double-blind reviewers.
  • Reviewers in the single-blind condition showed a preference for papers from top universities and companies.
  • Single-blind reviewers were significantly more likely to recommend papers from famous authors (OR=1.63), top universities (OR=1.58), and top companies (OR=2.10) for acceptance.

Conclusions:

  • Single-blind peer review introduces tangible biases favoring well-known authors and institutions in computer science conference settings.
  • The findings suggest that double-blind review may promote a more equitable evaluation of research submissions.
  • This study highlights the importance of review methodology in maintaining fairness and objectivity in academic evaluations.