Abstract
Journal of Peace Research has now introduced `double-blind' or `masked' review procedures. In other words, the author's name and affiliation are removed from the manuscript. This article explains why we make this change now, why we did not make it before, and why the decision was not obvious. The main argument in favor of blinding is that the reviewer should judge the article on the basis of its merit rather than on the basis of the prior reputation or record of the author. However, the empirical evidence whether or not blinding makes any difference is mixed, and the practice varies greatly among quality journals. We make this change mainly because double-blind seems to be the accepted standard among journals that cater to the same readers and authors, and because we do not want there to be any doubt as to the journal's commitment to peer review. At the same time, we reiterate our commitment to transparency, by permitting referees to sign their reports if they want to, by letting the authors see all the referee reports, by copying the editorial correspondence to the reviewers, and by strengthening our data replication policies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
