Not too long ago I agreed to review a paper after skimming the abstract and looking up the journal. When I went to actually do the review, I saw that the journal has a double-blind policy, and so I couldn\u2019t see the names or affiliations of the authors and they couldn\u2019t see mine. (The latter part here is standard practice for all but the \u201copen review\u201d journals.)<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve read about double-blind review, but never actually participated as author or reviewer before, so I got a little thrill when I realized I\u2019d be participating. In theory, I really like the concept, because there is reason to believe that unconscious bias affects how reviewers review papers. After all, unconscious bias affects pretty much everything. Unfortunately, there\u2019s not a lot of good hard evidence for reviewer unconscious bias, mostly because this issue has only come into the general scientific awareness relatively recently, and \u2013 I\u2019ve read \u2013 it\u2019s hard to actually do a good study. Rather than feel like, \u201cno need to get excited about reviewer implicit bias until there\u2019s evidence,\u201d I think we ought to be particularly motivated to get some really solid studies done. Because if it\u2019s a problem, then it\u2019s a very serious one.<\/p>\n
My particular views on implicit bias come from realizing my own. Several years ago, I took this awareness test<\/a> (choose \u201cGender-Science IAT\u201d from the list to do the one I did). And I started paying attention to my own thoughts. And I realized something unsettling. In early grad school, I frequently skipped the authors section when first reading a paper, because I pretty much didn\u2019t know who anyone was and the names were meaningless to me. Then, if it was a paper I liked, I\u2019d note the names of the authors, so I could remember them. If the first author\u2019s name was female, I\u2019d be surprised \u2013 like, \u201coh wow! Hawkes is a woman!\u201d Because the thing is, when I read a science paper, the default narrator\u2019s voice in my head is male. It just is. These days, I note authors\u2019 names before reading, and frequently enough I know the authors or at least know of them. But every once in a while, I\u2019m still surprised by author gender \u2013 almost invariably I\u2019ve read a paper that lists only first initials and then come to find out that the author is female later in some other way.<\/p>\n Okay, so this is horribly embarrassing. I mean, I consider myself to be pretty free of gender stereotypes. I\u2019m a self-described tomboy. I\u2019ve spent most of my life in male-dominated activities doing male gendered things. My husband and I are all in on equal parenting and householding. I know tons of accomplished female scientists and other highly respected women in male-dominated fields. So what gives? Culture. I am simply a product of my culture \u2013 just like everyone else. And so if I\u2019ve got anti-female implicit bias, I figure pretty much everyone else does, too.<\/p>\n Back to double-blind review. Does implicit bias matter when reviewing? Very possibly. We don\u2019t know for sure yet. [1]<\/span> But I think that a good study will look in the math or physics or engineering fields first, where power to detect such a bias is likely higher.<\/span><\/span> Even if it doesn\u2019t matter or matter very much, the perception that it matters is still affecting where people send manuscripts. So, at the very least, it matters indirectly.<\/p>\n How is double blind actually conducted? I imagine there are variations on a theme at different journals. Here\u2019s what the journal I reviewed for did:<\/p>\n\n