Results-blind review: a masked crusader for science
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
7-10-2018
Abstract
The organizational sciences are entering a confidence crisis where a growing number of scholars recognize our science is imperfect and our knowledge base is potentially flawed. One contributing factor that scholars have identified is the peer-review process; issues such as QRPs, positive outcome biases and publication bias are, in part, a product of the traditional peer-review process and contribute to the questionable credibility of our science. The current paper focuses on the results-blind review as a solution to improve the existing system because it has received little attention yet fits well with the nature of our discipline (e.g., not entirely grant-funded, field-research oriented). Using a mixed-methods approach, we surveyed 203 editorial board members to understand the scientific community’s reactions to the results-blind review initiative and readiness to implement change. Our results suggest that there are noted advantages of the results-blind review process and the scientific community is open to the initiative in our field. However, our data also suggest that there may be some hesitations about the initiative, particularly with implementing a new review process. Based on the results, we offer actionable recommendations for authors, reviewers, and editors regarding the results-blind review.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1496081
Recommended Citation
Woznyj, Haley M.; Grenier, Kelcie; Ross, Roxanne; Banks, George C.; and Rogelberg, Steven G., "Results-blind review: a masked crusader for science" (2018). Business & Economics Faculty Publications. 137.
https://digitalcommons.longwood.edu/business_facpubs/137
Original Citation
Woznyj, H. J., Grenier, K., Ross, R., Banks, G. C., Rogelberg, S. G. (2018). Results-blind review: A masked crusader for science. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology.
