26 Comments

Go to the profile of Afshin Khayambashi
Afshin Khayambashi about 2 years ago

As a reviewer, I think a single blind review is the better option. reviewers could check the background of the authors to know what papers they've published before and what the novelty of their job is in compare to previous works.

Go to the profile of Tuamoru Odii
Tuamoru Odii 11 months ago

Brilliant. I agree with this idea behind single-blind peer review system.

Go to the profile of Rosa Prahl
Rosa Prahl about 2 years ago

I would prefer the double blind peer review.

Go to the profile of Yu Mao
Yu Mao about 2 years ago

I prefer the transparent peer review, which provides us more insights into the key points of the paper

Go to the profile of Zhenhong Hu
Zhenhong Hu about 2 years ago

I would prefer the double blind peer review. In that case, reviewers will give the comments which was just based on the quality of the paper.

Go to the profile of Ivan Palomares Carrascosa
Ivan Palomares Carrascosa almost 2 years ago

I would ideally think of a hybrid model that combine single and double blind peer review, inviting the reviewer to conduct one or another approach depending on some factors, e.g. whether they have publications or institutions in common, etc. Of course it may sound complex and unrealistic to date, but it may not be too "utopic" in a near future

Go to the profile of Zhou Li
Zhou Li almost 2 years ago

I prefer the more insightful transparent peer review

Go to the profile of Lei Pan
Lei Pan almost 2 years ago

double blind  

Go to the profile of Sergio Lopez
Sergio Lopez over 1 year ago

Disclose the identities of the authors and the reviewers DURING the review process. The authors have the right to know who the reviewers are.  

Go to the profile of Laura Zhou
Laura Zhou over 1 year ago

I would prefer the double blind peer review.

Go to the profile of Paul A. Fowler
Paul A. Fowler over 1 year ago

Single blind is least worst option. Problem is reviewers are overloaded and overworked. Journals need to find another way, possibly by strangling predatory journals.

Go to the profile of Xiao Fang
Xiao Fang 12 months ago

I would prefer the double blind peer review.

Go to the profile of Victor S Garcia Rea
Victor S Garcia Rea 12 months ago

I would prefer double blind review... Although it is true that a reviewer could, eventually, notice who was the writer of the paper under review. 

Go to the profile of Victor S Garcia Rea
Victor S Garcia Rea 12 months ago

I would prefer double blind review... Although it is true that a reviewer could, eventually, notice who was the writer of the paper under review. 

Go to the profile of Daniel Daniel
Daniel Daniel 12 months ago

I prefer doubled-blind

Go to the profile of Maria Carla Martini
Maria Carla Martini 5 months ago

Double-blind

Go to the profile of Franziska Eller
Franziska Eller 5 months ago

Double blind.

Go to the profile of Sulaiman M. Alfadul
Sulaiman M. Alfadul 3 months ago

the survey page can not be opened

Go to the profile of Mukesh Roy
Mukesh Roy about 1 month ago

I would prefer the double blind peer review. 

Go to the profile of Pritam Khan
Pritam Khan about 1 month ago

I have worked as both reviewer and ofcurse being an author. The best part is single blind review

Go to the profile of Gabisile Zwane
Gabisile Zwane 28 days ago

Transparent peer review

Go to the profile of Paul Udom
Paul Udom 17 days ago

I will prefer double - blind peer review.

Go to the profile of Dr.D. Nagarajan
Dr.D. Nagarajan 15 days ago

I would prefer the double blind peer review.

Go to the profile of WallaceWaweru
WallaceWaweru 3 days ago

i prefer the double blind peer review

Go to the profile of WallaceWaweru
WallaceWaweru 3 days ago

blind peer review system

Go to the profile of WallaceWaweru
WallaceWaweru 3 days ago

the double blind peer review.