British Ecological Society to transition to anonymous peer review after study exposes bias

The British Ecological Society will begin transitioning its journals to mandatory double-anonymous peer review, following a new study which indicates a reduction in reviewer bias when author identities are anonymised. 

Double-anonymous peer review, also referred to as double-blind peer review, is where author identities are not disclosed to reviewers. This differs from single-anonymous peer review, where reviewers know the identities of the authors, which is more traditional in life science disciplines.

Published today (Tuesday, 4th April), the study found that when author identities were anonymised, peer review outcomes were similar across author demographics.

In contrast, when author identities were known by reviewers, outcomes depended on author demographics. Papers with a first author residing in a higher-income country or a country with a higher average English-proficiency received higher ratings from reviewers and were more likely to be invited for revision or resubmission compared to papers with first authors from a lower income country or country with a lower average English-proficiency.

According to the study, anonymising author identities had no effect on gender differences in reviewer ratings or editor decisions.

The randomised trial used real manuscripts submitted to the Functional Ecology journal from 2019 to 2022, of which there were 3,739. In the trial, all authors were required to submit their title page separately from the rest of their paper, with all information that could identify authors included only on the title page. Their paper was then randomly assigned to undergo double or single-anonymised peer review. Those assigned to undergo double-anonymous peer review were sent to reviewers without the title page that identified the authors. Those assigned to undergo single-anonymous peer review were sent to reviewers with the title page.

Based on evidence provided from the trial, the British Ecological Society will begin transitioning its journals to mandatory double-anonymous peer review. This will begin with Functional Ecology, with other journals to follow.

Professor Charles Fox of the University of Kentucky was lead author of the study and previously the executive editor for Functional Ecology. He said: “Our trial provides strong evidence that authors from higher-income and/or English-speaking countries receive significant benefits to being identified to reviewers during the peer review process, and that anonymising author-identities (e.g., double-blind review) reduces this bias, making the peer review process more equitable.

“It’s critical for science, and for the scientists involved, that peer review be a fair and unbiased process. The results of this trial will help inform publishers on the best ways to minimise some sources of bias in the publishing process.”

Andrea Baier, director of publishing at the British Ecological Society, said: “The British Ecological Society is committed to promoting equitable practices in international ecological science. Authors from all over the world submit to our seven journals and it is vitally important that the research we publish is reviewed and selected in the most impartial way, regardless of the authors’ backgrounds.”

Professor Rob Freckleton from the University of Sheffield is also chair of the British Ecological Society’s publications committee. He added: “On behalf of the British Ecological Society, the publications committee supported this important experiment, and from the outset we committed to being led by the results it would produce. We now have the evidence that double-anonymous peer review is an important building block towards greater equity in publishing and we are acting on it.”