The cases for and against double-blind reviews.

Area of Science:

• Ecology
• Scientific Publishing
• Gender Studies

Background:

• Historically, scientific publications have been male-dominated.
• Concerns exist that gender bias in peer review may disadvantage female authors.
• Double-blind review, where identities are concealed, is proposed as a solution.

Purpose of the Study:

• To evaluate the effectiveness of double-blind peer review in increasing female authorship.
• To compare female authorship rates in a double-blind journal versus single-blind journals.

Main Methods:

• Analyzed authorship gender for papers published between 2010-2018.
• Compared a behavioral ecology journal using double-blind review with four similar single-blind journals.
• Examined authorship data across different ecological disciplines.

Main Results:

• Female authorships constituted 35% of all authorships across journals.
• The double-blind journal did not show a higher incidence of female authorship compared to single-blind journals.
• Behavioral ecology journals had higher female authorship rates than ornithology journals.

Conclusions:

• Double-blind peer review did not demonstrably increase female authorship in the studied journals.
• The findings suggest double-blind review may not currently benefit female authors in these specific journals.
• Further discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of double-blind review is warranted.