IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/iepoli/v23y2011i1p24-26.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Double-blind in light of the internet: A note on author anonymity

Author

Listed:
  • Holm, Håkan J.

Abstract

This paper analyses the credibility of author anonymity that is provided by a double-blind review process. 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 process is finished. The difficulty and cost of identifying authors of unpublished manuscripts from which author identity has been stripped, were examined in an experiment where subjects were paid according to their identification performance. The vast majority of authors could be identified within 60Â s.

Suggested Citation

  • Holm, Håkan J., 2011. "Double-blind in light of the internet: A note on author anonymity," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 24-26, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:iepoli:v:23:y:2011:i:1:p:24-26
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-6245(10)00027-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ofer H. Azar, 2004. "Rejections and the importance of first response times," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 31(3), pages 259-274, March.
    2. Kalaitzidakis, P. & Mamuneas, T.P. & Stengos, T., 2003. "Rankings of Academic Journals and Institutions," Working Papers 2003-8, University of Guelph, Department of Economics and Finance.
    3. Carolin Haeussler & Lin Jiang & Jerry Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, 2009. "Specific and General Information Sharing Among Academic Scientists," NBER Working Papers 15315, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Robert A. Moffitt, 2010. "Report of the Editor: American Economic Review," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(2), pages 667-676, May.
    5. Pantelis Kalaitzidakis & Theofanis P. Mamuneas & Thanasis Stengos, 2003. "Rankings of Academic Journals and Institutions in Economics," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(6), pages 1346-1366, December.
    6. Blank, Rebecca M, 1991. "The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1041-1067, December.
    7. Holm, Håkan J., 2009. "Double-Blind in Light of Internet – Note on Review Processes," Working Papers 2009:5, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Holm, Håkan J., 2009. "Double-Blind in Light of Internet – Note on Review Processes," Working Papers 2009:5, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    2. Heintzelman Martin & Nocetti Diego, 2009. "Where Should we Submit our Manuscript? An Analysis of Journal Submission Strategies," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-28, September.
    3. Justus Haucap & Johannes Muck, 2015. "What drives the relevance and reputation of economics journals? An update from a survey among economists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 849-877, June.
    4. Jishnu Das & Quy-Toan Do, 2020. "US and them - The geography of academic research," Vox eBook Chapters, in: Sebastian Galliani & Ugo Panizza (ed.), Publishing and Measuring Success in Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 111-114, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    5. Francesc Pujol, 2008. "Ranking Journals Following a Matching Model Approach: An Application to Public Economics Journals," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 10(1), pages 55-76, February.
    6. Klaus Ritzberger, 2008. "Eine invariante Bewertung wirtschaftswissenschaftlicher Fachzeitschriften," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 9(3), pages 267-285, August.
    7. repec:bla:germec:v:9:y:2008:i::p:402-430 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Pantelis Kalaitzidakis & Theofanis P. Mamuneas & Thanasis Stengos, 2011. "An updated ranking of academic journals in economics," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 44(4), pages 1525-1538, November.
    9. Melody Lo & M. C. Sunny Wong & Franklin G. Mixon, 2008. "Ranking Economics Journals, Economics Departments, and Economists Using Teaching‐Focused Research Productivity," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 74(3), pages 894-906, January.
    10. David L. Anderson & John Tressler, 2013. "The Relevance of the “h-” and “g-” Index to Economics in the Context of A Nation-Wide Research Evaluation Scheme: The New Zealand Case," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 32(1), pages 81-94, March.
    11. Chen, Jihui Susan & Liu, Qihong & Billger, Sherrilyn M., 2012. "Where Do New Ph.D. Economists Go? Evidence from Recent Initial Job Placements," IZA Discussion Papers 6990, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. J. A. García & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia & J. Martinez-Baena, 2012. "On first quartile journals which are not of highest impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 925-943, March.
    13. David L. Anderson & John Tresler, 2008. "An Analysis of New Zealand Economists' Research Output 2000-2006," Working Papers in Economics 08/20, University of Waikato, revised 31 Dec 2008.
    14. Rolf Ketzler & Klaus F. Zimmermann, 2009. "Publications: German economic research institutes on track," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(1), pages 231-252, July.
    15. Dolado, Juan J. & Felgueroso, Florentino & Almunia, Miguel, 2005. "Do Men and Women-Economists Choose the Same Research Fields? Evidence from Top-50 Departments," IZA Discussion Papers 1859, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Matthias Weber, 2016. "The Effects of Listing Authors in Alphabetical Order: A survey of the Empirical Evidence," Bank of Lithuania Occasional Paper Series 12, Bank of Lithuania.
    17. Cherkashin, Ivan & Demidova, Svetlana & Imai, Susumu & Krishna, Kala, 2009. "The inside scoop: Acceptance and rejection at the journal of international economics," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 120-132, February.
    18. Martin Steininger & Bernd Süssmuth, 2005. "Elfenbeinligen und ihre Erfassung: Ein Kommentar und eine neuerliche Messung der Publikationstätigkeit der Wirtschaftsforschungsinstitute im deutschsprachigen Raum: 1989–2003," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 6(3), pages 409-420, August.
    19. Pedro Albarrán & Raquel Carrasco & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2017. "Are Migrants More Productive Than Stayers? Some Evidence From A Set Of Highly Productive Academic Economists," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(3), pages 1308-1323, July.
    20. Yong Bao & Melody Lo & Franklin G. Mixon, 2010. "General-interest versus specialty journals: Using intellectual influence of econometrics research to rank economics journals and articles," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 345-353.
    21. Jang C. Jin, 2016. "The Imports of Overseas Publications and School Ranking in Higher Education: A Feasibility Study," International Journal of Higher Education, Sciedu Press, vol. 5(4), pages 232-232, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:iepoli:v:23:y:2011:i:1:p:24-26. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505549 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.