Arbeitspapier

Double-Blind in Light of Internet – Note on Review Processes

zu Verbundenen Objekten

This paper analyses the credibility of author anonymity provided by double-blind review processes. It is argued that authors have strong incentives to disseminate information about their papers before publication. A sample from two economics journals, both using double-blind review processes provides evidence that author revealing information of most accepted papers is available on the Internet before the review processes are finished. The difficulty and cost of identifying authors of anonymized unpublished manuscripts are examined in an experiment where subjects are paid according to their identification performance. The vast majority of authors can be identified within 60 seconds.

Sprache
Englisch

Erschienen in
Series: Working Paper ; No. 2009:5

Klassifikation
Wirtschaft
Design of Experiments: Laboratory, Individual
Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty: General
Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights: General
Thema
Review Process
Scientific Publication
Experiment

Ereignis
Geistige Schöpfung
(wer)
Holm, Håkan J.
Ereignis
Veröffentlichung
(wer)
Lund University, School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics
(wo)
Lund
(wann)
2009

Handle
Letzte Aktualisierung
10.03.2025, 11:43 MEZ

Datenpartner

Dieses Objekt wird bereitgestellt von:
ZBW - Deutsche Zentralbibliothek für Wirtschaftswissenschaften - Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft. Bei Fragen zum Objekt wenden Sie sich bitte an den Datenpartner.
Original beim Datenpartner anzeigen

Objekttyp

  • Arbeitspapier

Beteiligte

  • Holm, Håkan J.
  • Lund University, School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics

Entstanden

  • 2009

Ähnliche Objekte (12)

Editorial: Single-blind or double-blind review processes?

Editorial: Single-blind or double-blind review processes?

A double-blind placebo needle for acupuncture research

A double-blind placebo needle for acupuncture research

Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer?

Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer?

Lidocaine for systemic sclerosis: a double-blind randomized clinical trial

Lidocaine for systemic sclerosis: a double-blind randomized clinical trial

Microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms: a double-blind placebo-controlled study

Microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms: a double-blind placebo-controlled study

Egg white hydrolyzate reduces mental fatigue: randomized, double-blind, controlled study

Egg white hydrolyzate reduces mental fatigue: randomized, double-blind, controlled study

Spicae aetheroleum in uncomplicated acute bronchitis: a double-blind, randomised clinical trial

Spicae aetheroleum in uncomplicated acute bronchitis: a double-blind, randomised clinical trial

Rifaximin Treatment of Collagenous Colitis: A Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Rifaximin Treatment of Collagenous Colitis: A Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Treatment of dysferlinopathy with deflazacort: a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial

Treatment of dysferlinopathy with deflazacort: a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial

Treatment of dysferlinopathy with deflazacort: a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial

Treatment of dysferlinopathy with deflazacort: a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial

Chocolate flavanols and skin photoprotection: a parallel, double-blind, randomized clinical trial

Chocolate flavanols and skin photoprotection: a parallel, double-blind, randomized clinical trial

Bedeutung von Künstlicher Intelligenz in der Sozialen Arbeit (double-blind peer review)

Bedeutung von Künstlicher Intelligenz in der Sozialen Arbeit (double-blind peer review)

Verbundene Objekte