<div class="gmail_quote">Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Alon Lischinsky <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alon.lischinsky@kultmed.umu.se" target="_blank">alon.lischinsky@kultmed.umu.se</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><br>
> As you say, "it's not easy to decide whether [a blind practice] is<br>
> preferable". However, in these cases, don't we normally look to the<br>
> lessons we get from history? Throughout history, society has<br>
> implemented various methods to avoid biases in decision making<br>
> systems, and 'blind' practices seem to be much more prevalent now.<br>
<br>
</div>In some respects, probably. For most of history, blindness was simply<br>
not practicable because of the small world phenomenon.<br>
<br>
However, it seems to me that blind procedures tend to be favoured to<br>
protect individuals in situations where no single one exerts<br>
significant power, as in your example of voting systems. In this case,<br>
individual-level bias is of little consequence. The goal of the blind<br>
procedure is mainly to protect individuals from ex-post retaliation.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree that blind procedures protect individuals from ex-post retaliation. I think this is the most important reason why it is used in voting systems, regardless of who has power. </div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
However, where individual decision-makers have significant power and<br>
their clients are not usually in a position to retaliate (as is the<br>
case with reviewers and authors), transparency and public oversight<br>
can offer more substantial advantages than blinding.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Really? Why would you say that the reviewers' 'clients' are not usually in a position to retaliate? I review many papers and I'm sure many of my 'clients' are more well-known and influential than I am. (I don't know because the system is blind!) If they know that I had rejected their paper, and assuming they also review papers, why *couldn't* they decide to start rejecting my papers. (This is under the assumption that neither side is blind).</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> You mention peer<br>
juries as an example; they are a somewhat peculiar one, inasmuch as<br>
jury decisions are supposed to be unanimous, and hung juries result in<br>
mistrial, but more important is that they don't much resemble peer<br>
reviews.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Many juries in many countries can give a verdict without the decision being unanimous. </div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The reviewing process is, if anything, more similar to a<br>
bench trial, where a single person is in charge of all decisions, and<br>
no checks exist to limit their discretionary judgement.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Why? In the reviewing process, multiple people give reviews on a paper. If you are trying to argue that a single person makes all the decisions, that would be the Editor, who the author will know directly.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> And in all<br>
forms of bench trial I know, magistrates are required to identify<br>
themselves, provisions are made for their eventual recusal, and<br>
tallies of the votes in collegiate bodies (i.e., SCOTUS) identify by<br>
name who subscribed to each opinion.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Not sure about all this. But, the Editor (=magistrate?) is certainly known to the author.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
I don't think blind review is always a bad idea; far from it, evidence<br>
such as that quoted by Adam suggests it can be quite beneficial in<br>
many cases. However, it also has disadvantages, and I don't think they<br>
should be ignored just because it's what everyone else is doing.<br>
<div><div></div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't think the supporters of blind-reviewing are ignoring the problems. As I wrote before, I just think it is strange that people are proposing dropping the blind-review process altogether just because of its limitations. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Saying that, it's good to have discussions like this so we can reflect on our practices.</div><div><br></div><div>Laurence.</div></div>