From 3 July 2017, for a period of 12 months, ChemComm will be offering authors a choice on how their manuscripts will be peer reviewed.
Single-blind peer review – where the reviewers are aware of the identity of the authors, but not vice versa – is the traditional review model favoured by most scientific journals, and is the one that our journals have always used.
However, the scientific community has recently shown a growing interest in double-blind peer review – where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous. It has been argued that this model could reduce the impact of biases in the peer review process, based on gender, ethnicity, author affiliation and so on. These biases could be conscious or unconscious.
In response to this we will be trialling a new approach with our journal ChemComm, to investigate the extent to which our authors value having the option of anonymity.
From July, authors can choose to keep their identity from reviewers, while reviewers will still remain anonymous, assessing the work without knowing who the authors are. In addition authors will still have the option of remaining with the current, customary process of single-blind peer review.
The 12-month trial will enable us to assess the true demand for double-blind peer review, and could also help us understand any differences in effectiveness between the two processes.
To find out more about why we are exploring double-blind peer review, how the trial will work and how you can take part, please visit our blog.