No Peeking: Peer Review and Presumptive Blinding

Nathan Ballantyne; Jared Celniker

doi:10.1017/can.2024.25

No Peeking: Peer Review and Presumptive Blinding

Nathan Ballantyne, Jared Celniker

History, Philosophy and Religious Studies, School of (SHPRS)

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Blind review is ubiquitous in contemporary science, but there is no consensus among stakeholders and researchers about when or how much or why blind review should be done. In this essay, we explain why blinding enhances the impartiality and credibility of science while also defending a norm according to which blind review is a baseline presumption in scientific peer review.

Original language	English (US)
Journal	Canadian Journal of Philosophy
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2024.25
State	Accepted/In press - 2024

Keywords

biases
brutal humility
open science
peer review
research evaluation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Philosophy

Access to Document

10.1017/can.2024.25

Cite this

@article{a033e7f677aa401cb181aa008e35a656,

title = "No Peeking: Peer Review and Presumptive Blinding",

abstract = "Blind review is ubiquitous in contemporary science, but there is no consensus among stakeholders and researchers about when or how much or why blind review should be done. In this essay, we explain why blinding enhances the impartiality and credibility of science while also defending a norm according to which blind review is a baseline presumption in scientific peer review.",

keywords = "biases, brutal humility, open science, peer review, research evaluation",

author = "Nathan Ballantyne and Jared Celniker",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} The Author(s), 2024.",

year = "2024",

doi = "10.1017/can.2024.25",

language = "English (US)",

journal = "Canadian Journal of Philosophy",

issn = "0045-5091",

publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - No Peeking

T2 - Peer Review and Presumptive Blinding

AU - Ballantyne, Nathan

AU - Celniker, Jared

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s), 2024.

PY - 2024

Y1 - 2024

N2 - Blind review is ubiquitous in contemporary science, but there is no consensus among stakeholders and researchers about when or how much or why blind review should be done. In this essay, we explain why blinding enhances the impartiality and credibility of science while also defending a norm according to which blind review is a baseline presumption in scientific peer review.

AB - Blind review is ubiquitous in contemporary science, but there is no consensus among stakeholders and researchers about when or how much or why blind review should be done. In this essay, we explain why blinding enhances the impartiality and credibility of science while also defending a norm according to which blind review is a baseline presumption in scientific peer review.

KW - biases

KW - brutal humility

KW - open science

KW - peer review

KW - research evaluation

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85204065128

UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85204065128&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/can.2024.25

DO - 10.1017/can.2024.25

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:85204065128

SN - 0045-5091

JO - Canadian Journal of Philosophy

JF - Canadian Journal of Philosophy

ER -

No Peeking: Peer Review and Presumptive Blinding

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this