• Sumocat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Double-blind review masks the author’s identity, including self-citations that would identify the author. The author may have done this too effectively, and/or the reviewer was not as familiar with the author’s work as the critique would imply.

    • WolfLink@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      4 hours ago

      A self-citation in a double-blind review should just look like a normal citation of 3rd party work.

      Unless you are saying specifically “in my previous work”.

      I suppose it depends on the writing style.

      • Sumocat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Yes, it should look the same, and some journals go as far as redacting the references on the review copy entirely, so they all look exactly the same. That said, if an author is prestigious enough to be known, they need to do more than that to mask their identity. Writing styles and subject matter can give away an author’s identify even if blinded.

      • Sumocat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        38 minutes ago

        In single-blind peer review, it’s just the reviewer. In double-blind, it’s both reviewer and author(s) with different levels of author blinding. Double-blind arguably reduces reviewer bias, but depending on the field and subject matter, once an author is recognizable, double-blinding doesn’t truly mask them.