Independent Researcher
Discussion
Started 17 July 2021
Double Blind Peer Review
So one day I will send out a research paper on forensic linguistics for a review. Though I will have made it anonymous, yet the paper finds itself into the hands of a forensic linguist who is my friend, and he will immediately realize the paper has been written by me.
So, we now need to rethink how blind is a double blind peer review given the knowledge and expertise of a forensic linguist reviewer. Already, is it not the task of a forensic linguist to identify the blind or anonymous texts/sounds?
Most recent answer
The first aim of double blind peer review is to prevent acceptance of substandard articles on the basis of friendship or other grounds.
Dear Ameer Ali If the reviewer has any antipathy for you he can't recommend rejection just on the basis of frivolous grounds; it has to be on the basis of strong grounds. You will also get a chance to review the comments. At the most what will happen is that you won't get sympathetic consideration.
If the reviewer happens to be your well wisher; well it is good for you.
All in all I don't think there is any cause for undue worry, as long as you believe in your work and the article is well written
Narayanan
1 Recommendation
Popular replies (1)
Wayne State College
In this case, your friend should inform the journal editors that he recognizes you as the author and has a conflict of interest, so he should not review the manuscript.
5 Recommendations
All replies (4)
Wayne State College
In this case, your friend should inform the journal editors that he recognizes you as the author and has a conflict of interest, so he should not review the manuscript.
5 Recommendations
Sana'a University
The term double-blind peer review refers to a peer-review process in which neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other’s names or affiliations. If a reviewer recognizes a manuscript author, they should not proceed with the review because of violating the core of the blind review process (i.e., anonymity); instead, they could declare a conflict of interest as pointed out by Michael W. Marek. Alternatively, they could go for open peer review, whereby authors and reviewers know each other’s identities. Here is an interesting read on the different types of peer review.
Taylor and Francis Group. (2021, March 23). What are the different types of peer review? Author Services. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/publishing-your-research/peer-review/types-peer-review/#
Best,
1 Recommendation
University of Liège
Double-blind peer review relies on reviewers being honest about conflicts of interest, as is the case in your example. You don't have to be a forensic linguist to recognize the hand of a colleague or friend behind a manuscript sent to you for review, so this is an issue that's been plaguing peer-review for years.
1 Recommendation
Independent Researcher
The first aim of double blind peer review is to prevent acceptance of substandard articles on the basis of friendship or other grounds.
Dear Ameer Ali If the reviewer has any antipathy for you he can't recommend rejection just on the basis of frivolous grounds; it has to be on the basis of strong grounds. You will also get a chance to review the comments. At the most what will happen is that you won't get sympathetic consideration.
If the reviewer happens to be your well wisher; well it is good for you.
All in all I don't think there is any cause for undue worry, as long as you believe in your work and the article is well written
Narayanan
1 Recommendation
Similar questions and discussions
Related Publications
Selecting prolific users of an organized crime-related online forum, this volume presents experimental research that attempts to find the author of anonymous texts. Firstly, the reader is introduced to two increasingly popular tasks in forensic linguistics: authorship attribution and author profiling. Secondly, the most common automated text classi...
In this article, two cases of crimen iniuria are reported in which the suspect could be identified, on the basis of a forensic linguistic analysis, as the author of defamatory documents—one which resulted in litigation and an eventual conviction, and one which was dealt with intra-institutionally by the authorities concerned subsequent to the submi...
This chapter deals with the intrinsic structure and the diagnostic potential of orthographic data in the forensic linguistic analysis of anonymous authorship. The focus is on “feature configurations” of an encompassing nature between different levels and kinds of linguistic data. All generalizations discussed are based on authentic data of the anal...