Double Anonymity and the Peer Review Process | Zendy

Richard J. C. Brown | Zendy

AI Assistant Blog Pricing

Home ZAIA Blog

Open Access

Double Anonymity and the Peer Review Process

Author(s) -

Richard J. C. Brown

Publication year - 2006

Publication title -

the scientific world journal

Language(s) - English

Resource type - Journals

SCImago Journal Rank - 0.453

H-Index - 93

eISSN - 2356-6140

pISSN - 1537-744X

DOI - 10.1100/tsw.2006.228

Subject(s) - peer review , anonymity , novelty , relevance (law) , judgement , process (computing) , computer science , work (physics) , quality (philosophy) , data science , internet privacy , psychology , epistemology , political science , social psychology , computer security , law , mechanical engineering , philosophy , engineering , operating system

The process of peer review for submissions to scientific journals is a well-established and widely used procedure. Review by one's peers is a well-recognised and long-standing method of appraisal. Throughout all branches of science, medicine, humanities, art, literature, politics, sport, and in fact almost all areas of human endeavour, the judgement of work by an individual or group of experts in similar fields of study is the most rigorous and valuable form of recognition. "Peer review", as this process is commonly known, is an important method of assuring quality, relevance and novelty of work. However, is there still room for improvement in the procedural aspects of peer review?

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.

Having issues? You can contact us here

Accelerating Research