This literature review examines the neutrality of the review process for articles submitted to scholarly journals. Authors don’t know who reviews their articles, but author information is often available to reviewers. Gender and other information implied by author names, may influence reviewers’ perceptions of an article. A double-blind review process would eliminate this possibility. Since there is wide divergence between male and female perspectives upon animals and animal welfare, gender equity in academic publishing is important for animal advocates.

[Abstract excerpted from original source.]

“The underrepresentation of women is an issue that scientists, educators, and policy makers continue to tackle. Gender inequalities occur in hiring, funding, collaborations, academic patents, job satisfaction, and citation rates. This situation does not only reflect a gender gap in the upper tiers of science leadership; in many countries, minority and international scientists are also missing. Such disparities can feed a subtle but inherent bias about the value and contributions of women, minorities, and international scientists.

One solution is to ensure that research contributions are fairly evaluated, particularly in the peer review process. For example, most journals use single-blind review, whereby a reviewer’s identity is hidden but the authors are revealed. This can allow unintentional or subconscious biases to affect how a reviewer judges a paper based on its authors. An alternative system is double-blind review, in which the identities of both reviewers and authors are concealed. The switch to blind auditions at the New York Philharmonic Orchestra (where musicians played behind a screen) increased the representation of women from 10% to 45%. Should a similar approach be applied to scientific peer review?”