Perspectives on double‐blind peer review from collectivist cultural contexts

A preference for open peer review may reflect a historical, predominantly individualistic rather than collectivist cultural perspective

“Journal peer review is often time‐consuming, arduous, and fraught with suspicion, not least because the identities of reviewers usually remain hidden from the authors.”1 Such a bias against blinded peer review may be traced back to the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication held in Chicago in 1989.2 This point of view was possibly kindled by a randomised trial on the effects of blinding on the quality of peer review3 and fuelled by subsequent investigations of the effects of blinding, masking and unmasking on peer review quality.4,5

The origins of peer review, attributed to early learned societies such as the Royal Society and the foundation of their Philosophical Transactions in 1665, reveal that the “function of refereeing [as peer review was then known], and the social and intellectual meaning associated with scholarly publication, has historically been quite different from the function and meaning now associated with peer review”.6 Since that time, peer review has evolved into many forms and is no longer a single system.7 Much of what has been written on this subject reflects predominantly individualistic (Western) rather than collectivist (Eastern) cultural perspectives.8 However, pace Kipling, the twain do meet, and the differences in these perspectives are really a matter of degree and may be viewed as points along a continuum.

Within this collective–individual continuum, “vertical” and “horizontal” social relations are a typical point of contrast between collectivist and individualistic cultures. The relentless pursuit of youth among the latter is diametrically opposed to the reverence for age in the former, where achievement still gives way to ascription and precedence. There is less tolerance for horizontal first‐name relations between generations in vertical, collectivist cultures where the elder's name must be preceded by a term denoting rank or position. Even among siblings in a nuclear family, there may be proper terms of address from the eldest to the youngest, for both males and females. Such differences have also resulted in people from collectivist cultures being viewed as less than straightforward or downright dishonest by people from individualistic cultures. The former may avoid direct eye contact as a sign of respect, deference or humility — interpreted by the latter as an inability to “look me in the eye”. Among some Indigenous Australians, looking directly into the eyes is tantamount to peering into the soul. How then can more senior professors in such a cultural context openly submit themselves to the review of a junior instructor (whom the senior will never consider a peer)? Conversely, how can a younger person openly evaluate and figuratively gaze directly into the eyes of an elder (whom the junior would never dare consider his or her peer)? Neither would be comfortable in such a position, and both would most likely comply politely and properly without performing any real review — unless they were granted the face‐saving grace of being blinded to each other.

The journals we each represent, along with the MJA, all practise double‐blind peer review — which has served us well. Even in fields where single‐blind review has been the norm, the author demand for double‐blind review has motivated IOP Publishing (Institute of Physics) to expand its double‐blind peer review program.9

A retrospective analysis of BioMed Central and SpringerOpen journals that use three different peer review models (single‐blind, double‐blind and open) found that a “smaller proportion of invited reviewers agreed to peer review for journals operating under open and single‐blind peer review models compared with journals that use double‐blind peer review”.10 A study of the rate at which peer reviewers at three Public Library of Science (PLOS) journals chose to sign or not sign peer reviews, revealing or not revealing themselves to authors, and whether authors’ and reviewers’ stated values about signing reviews matched their behaviour, found that of over 450 000 reviews analysed, only 7.7% were signed.11 Authors’ opinions towards review signing differed from those of reviewers, as did research community reactions: PLOS Medicine maintained a strong tradition of signing, whereas PLOS Computational Biology was fairly conservative despite familiarity with open peer review.11

Double‐blind review has its pros and cons. A demographic analysis of the uptake of double‐blind review in 25 Nature journals identified differences in editorial outcome depending on peer review model. The study found that authors chose double‐blind review more frequently when they submitted to more prestigious journals, were affiliated with less prestigious institutions, or were from specific countries; however, the double‐blind option was also linked to less successful editorial outcomes.12 On the other hand, it has been shown that single‐blind reviewers were significantly more likely than their double‐blind counterparts to recommend papers from well known authors, high ranking universities and top companies for acceptance.13

Thrown into this mix is the fairly recent concept of recruiting patients, patient advocates and caregivers as peer reviewers. The BMJ's 2013 “patient revolution” initiative14 led to the subsequent launch of their patient partnership strategy in 2014, which saw implementation of internal editorial changes aimed at making patient partnership integral to the way the journal is run.15 These developments included embedding patient peer review in the standard review processes for all research papers where patient input is deemed to be helpful. New journals such as Patient Experience Journal and BioMed Central's Research Involvement and Engagement — launched in 2014 and 2015, respectively — also advocate strong patient partnership, including patient peer review. Interestingly, The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement advocate open review, while the Patient Experience Journal employs double‐blind review. At present, this concept of using patients as peer reviewers remains confined to a few journals. Several issues relating to patient peer review that have surfaced need to be addressed simultaneously while this peer review model continues to evolve. Although collectivist culture journals may be predictably slower to embrace patient peer review, blinding could be an option worth considering.

Another recent development concerns younger generations who seem more willing to share their opinions on social media through blogs, posts and tweets, and it can be argued that “likes” and “comments” are forms of peer review (albeit informal). While these may be extrapolated to argue the case for open review, negative responses such as “dislikes”, “blocking” and “unfriending” might also strengthen the case for blinding. In a world where mainstream media (such as CNN and the BBC) as well as scholarly journals now publish Twitter and Facebook messages and blogs (such as BMJ Blogs), we would do well to consider incorporating such review forms from social media. Blinding may encourage younger peers to share their opinions without concern of offending anyone, or being disliked, blocked or unfriended. For example, involving a younger peer in the review of an article on computer‐assisted surgery may make more sense than inviting a less technologically literate senior surgeon. Developing the younger peers of today in forms of review they are familiar with, while protecting their privacy by blinding, may serve us well as they will become the senior experts of tomorrow.

The debate is far from over, but the pendulum is clearly swinging towards blind peer review in general, and double‐blind review in particular. Perhaps the most compelling numbers come from Publons’ 2018 report on the global state of peer review,16 which found that authors were more likely to submit a paper to a journal with blind peer review policies (single‐blind, 63% of 12 291; double‐blind, 73% of 12 314; triple‐blind, 52% of 12 250) than one with open peer review policies (open identities, 29% of 12 227; open reports, 31% of 12 236; open identities and reports, 24% of 12 230). Peer reviewers were even more likely to accept an invitation to review for a journal with blind peer review policies (single‐blind, 73% of 12 272; double‐blind, 77.5% of 12 285; triple‐blind, 61.5% of 12 246) than one with open peer review policies (open identities, 30.7% of 12 223; open reports, 32.6% of 12 220; open identities and reports, 25.2% of 12 221).16

Indeed, cross‐cultural differences pervade all aspects of life, including peer review. By being aware of, and accommodating, cross‐cultural considerations, we potentially involve more current reviewers as well as patients and younger peers in the review process. At least from our collectivist cultural perspective, double‐blind review still remains appropriate, and should be considered a valid model in policy and practice.