blind peer review
phrasePronunciation: /blaɪnd pɪr rɪˈvjuː/
A review process where the reviewer's identity is hidden from the author. This ensures unbiased evaluation of manuscripts based solely on content quality.
Full Definition
A scholarly manuscript evaluation system where reviewers remain anonymous to authors during the assessment process. The reviewer can see the author's identity and institutional affiliation, but their own identity is concealed from the author. This method aims to encourage honest, critical feedback without fear of professional retaliation or personal bias. The process helps maintain objectivity in academic publishing by allowing reviewers to focus on the scientific merit rather than the author's reputation or status.
Plain English
A way of reviewing research papers where the person checking the work stays anonymous, so they can give honest feedback without worrying about upsetting the author.
In Editorial Context
A manuscript evaluation workflow where editorial systems mask reviewer identities in all author-facing communications, requiring careful management of reviewer comments and editorial correspondence to maintain anonymity throughout the publication process.
Etymology & History
Emerged as academic publishing formalized peer review processes to address concerns about bias and favoritism in scholarly evaluation during the post-WWII expansion of academic institutions.
Originally called 'anonymous review' but 'blind' became preferred to distinguish from double-blind review; meaning has remained consistent since inception.
Usage
"Our journal employs blind peer review to ensure that manuscripts are evaluated objectively without reviewer bias toward author reputation."
Usage note: Often contrasted with 'double-blind review' where both parties are anonymous; should not be confused with 'open review' where all identities are known.
Context: manuscript submission systems, editorial policies, reviewer guidelines, journal methodology descriptions
Region: international
Also known as
Contrasted with
Don't confuse with
Double-blind review hides both reviewer and author identities, while open review reveals both; the 'blind' specification refers only to reviewer anonymity.