Dear Rosan,
My note contained several typographic errors.
One was especially vital.
I wrote, "nearly everyone on your list accepts and participates in review
processes as a reviewer. Nearly all have used review for conferences when
they have been conference organizers. If they believed that __open__ review
was evil, they would not be reviewed nor would they agree to be reviewers
or to use the review process as editors or organizers."
I should have wrotten __peer__ review.
All social systems involve some form of review for admission to the group.
The earliest journals did not use peer review. They accepted all
contributions from anyone judged to be a "peer."
Where the review took place was in admission to standing as a peer.
The reason for creating double-blind peer review was specifically to
compensate for the effects of social prejudice in scholarly and scientific
communities where women, people of color, members of certain religious
groups, etc., were not admitted to peer status.
In the United States, some juried art and design exhibitions implemented
double-blind peer review specifically because feminists argued -- correctly
-- that jurors routinely disciminated against artists and designers with
female names. In most cases, double-blind peer review justified this
claim, and implementing a double-blind peer review system dramatically
increased the representation of women in juried art and design exhibitions.
Best regards,
Ken
|