Double-Anonymised Peer Review: a New Option for Authors at Chemical Science† Cite This: Chem
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Chemical Science EDITORIAL View Article Online View Journal | View Issue Double-anonymised peer review: a new option for authors at Chemical Science† Cite this: Chem. Sci.,2021,12,8586 DOI: 10.1039/d1sc90122b rsc.li/chemical-science We are pleased to announce that authors vision people. Therefore, this taxonomy requests for alternative models that are will now be able to select the option of recommends that the term ‘double-blind’ coming from the broad and diverse Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence. double-anonymised peer review for their is replaced by ‘double-anonymised’.As chemical sciences community. manuscript on submission to Chemical we introduce this model on Chemical In July 2017, one of our sister journals, Science. For the majority of journals at the Science, we will also be extending the ChemComm, trialled the use of double- Royal Society of Chemistry, and across terminology more widely across all Royal anonymised peer review and perma- the chemical sciences more widely, peer Society of Chemistry journals that offer it. nently adopted it a year later. Their review is carried out using a traditional experience identied that 10% of their single-anonymised approach, where authors chose this approach, with an reviewers are anonymous but author Why are we introducing above average number of these authors ffi This article is licensed under a names and a liations are known to double-anonymised peer being resident in India and the Middle reviewers. Double-anonymised peer East. The quality of the reviews and review takes this one step further and review? author satisfaction were comparable for conceals the authors’ and reviewers’ both single- and double-anonymised Open Access Article. Published on 29 June 2021. Downloaded 9/23/2021 1:24:50 PM. The Royal Society of Chemistry is identities from each other. routes.4 Since then our Environmental committed to tackling the signicant Members of the Chemical Science Science family of journals has also taken gender, racial, socioeconomic and readership will likely be familiar with the the move to offer the option of double- geographical challenges that affect the term ‘double-blind peer review’ and how anonymised peer review to their scholarly publishing process. In recent it operates. In 2020, the STM Association, authors.5 Other science, technical and years we have studied our own a global trade association for academic medical publishers have also trialled and publishing operation to identify and and professional publishers, formed 2 adopted double-anonymised peer review quantify gender bias and initiated a working group to look at peer review recently, for example the Society of Envi- a joint commitment with 38 other taxonomy to develop and recommend ronmental Toxicology and Chemistry publishing organisations to set new standardised terminology to make peer journals published by Wiley6 and the standards within scholarly publishing to review practices transparent and inclu- Institute of Physics, who have imple- 1 enable a more inclusive and diverse sive for all. It was decided that the use of 3 mented double-anonymised peer review culture. Bringing the option of double- the word ‘blind’ in this context, as well as across all of their journals.7,8 anonymised peer review to Chemical being easy to misinterpret, is ableist in By offering double-anonymised peer Science is another step towards a fairer origin, i.e. arises from and reinforces review we hope to give Chemical Science and more inclusive process. stereotypical understandings of disability authors more choice and control over Since the launch of Chemical Science, which impact negatively on blind and low how their manuscript is handled. For any the only peer review model that has been author who feels that they may be available to our authors is the more unfairly subject to a bias in relation to traditional single-anonymised approach. † Electronic supplementary information (ESI) their gender, ethnicity, career stage, While we continue to trust in the effec- available: Checklist when preparing your affiliation or otherwise, we hope this tiveness of that system, we also want to submission for double-anonymised peer review. See option will allow them to have greater DOI: 10.1039/d1sc90122b respond to the growing number of 8586 | Chem. Sci.,2021,12,8586–8588 © 2021 The Author(s). Published by the Royal Society of Chemistry View Article Online Editorial Chemical Science trust in the peer review of their manu- How does double- author to ensure that their manuscript is script. Over time, this will also provide suitably anonymised. data that will help us as a journal and anonymised peer review As a reviewer, you will receive an invi- a publisher to identify sources of bias so fit with Open Science tation where the identity of the authors is that we can take further steps to elimi- practices kept condential for papers where the nate them. authors have chosen the option of While there are clear strengths to this Alongside Chemical Science’s diamond double-anonymised peer review. All approach for reducing bias, we must also Open Access credentials, the journal has further communication will omit author recognise the challenges of double- also been taking steps to adopt wider name and affiliation details. If you anonymised peer review.9 Under this Open Science practices, such as making determine the identity of the authors for model, the onus to ensure a manuscript author contribution statements manda- manuscripts where double-anonymised is appropriately anonymised will lie with tory10,11 and more strongly encouraging peer review was chosen, we would ask the authors, and we appreciate the diffi- data availability statements.11,12 While at you to continue with your review, culties attached to this. As so much rst glance double-anonymised peer focusing on the suitability of the manu- scientic research draws on previous review could be seen to be making the script for the Chemical Science audience work and has iterative components, peer review process more opaque, we in line with our reviewing procedure. appropriately referencing a manuscript view it as complementary to more open However, we would ask you to please may leave a clear trail to the authors’ peer review models. Double-anonymised highlight in the condential comments identities. Moreover, as the use of peer review aims to reduce the bias to the Editor that you were able to identify preprint servers such as ChemRxiv during the review process. Open and the authors when submitting your review. increases, a reviewer might easily identify transparent peer review models, We look forward to working with the the authors should they choose to conversely, work to increase the visibility authors and reviewers of Chemical Science Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence. preprint their manuscript. of the decision-making process a er with the inclusion of this new review Another challenge is time. Anonymis- review, so that readers can understand option. ing a manuscript requires a different the steps taken during the peer review writing style and this may have an process that led to the publication of an May Copsey increased time cost for authors, for article. Both double-anonymised and Executive Editor, Chemical Science example if they have previously open or transparent peer review models submitted the work to a different journal can operate at the same time to bring Jeremy Allen that offers only single-anonymised peer fairness and transparency to the publi- Deputy Editor, Chemical Science review. We feel that these challenges are cation process. While Chemical Science This article is licensed under a more than compensated by the addi- does not offer open or transparent peer Andrew I Cooper tional choice that this system offers for review at this time, should we introduce Editor-in-Chief, Chemical Science,& authors. this to the journal in future, we feel these Department of Chemistry, University of Open Access Article. Published on 29 June 2021. Downloaded 9/23/2021 1:24:50 PM. Critics of double-anonymised models two options for authors can work well in Liverpool, UK that are optional to authors might argue tandem with each other. cases of positive bias are still possible where the single-anonymised route is How will double- References chosen. We recognise that this approach alone will not tackle all sources of bias anonymised peer review 1 Working Group on Peer Review within the publishing system. Our Asso- work in practice for our Taxonomy, https://www.stm-assoc.org/ ciate Editors will continue to have over- authors and reviewers? standards-technology/peer-review- sight of both author and reviewer taxonomy-project/, accessed 27th May identities. Working together we can help As an author, you will be able to choose 2021. to reduce bias, regardless of the peer whether your manuscript undergoes 2 Is publishing in the chemical sciences review model used. We are also working double-anonymised peer review or tradi- gender biased?, https://www.rsc.org/ to further increase the diversity of both tional, single-anonymised peer review. new-perspectives/talent/gender-bias-in- our Editorial Board and reviewer pool Both options will be available to all publishing/, accessed 27th May 2021. and to increase the breadth of perspec- authors and your preference can be 3 Joint commitment for action on tives that we draw upon for editorial selected during the submission process. inclusion and diversity in publishing, decisions. Offering the option of double If you choose the double-anonymised https://www.rsc.org/new-perspectives/ anonymised peer review has the poten- peer review option, you should ensure talent/joint-commitment-for-action- tial to reduce bias with respect to gender, that your manuscript and all associated inclusion-and-diversity-in-publishing/, race and ethnicity, country of origin, or les are suitably anonymised before accessed 27th May 2021.