Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics

TL;DR

This study analyzes how review models and author characteristics influence manuscript outcomes in Nature journals, revealing that double-blind review is less common, associated with less prestigious institutions and countries, and correlates with more negative editorial decisions.

Contribution

It provides the first large-scale analysis of author demographics and review model choices, highlighting biases and outcome differences in peer review processes.

Findings

Double-blind review uptake is 12%.

Less prestigious institutions favor double-blind review.

Double-blind papers have higher rejection rates.

Abstract

Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. The aims of this study are to analyse the demographics of corresponding authors choosing double blind peer review, and to identify differences in the editorial outcome of manuscripts depending on their review model. Data includes 128,454 manuscripts received between March 2015 and February 2017 by 25 Nature-branded journals. Author uptake for double-blind was 12%. We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type. We found no statistically significant difference in the distribution of peer review model between males and females. We found that corresponding authors from the less prestigious institutions are more likely to choose double-blind review. In the ten countries with the highest number of submissions, we found a small but significant association between country and review type. The outcome at both first decision and post review is significantly more negative (i.e. a higher likelihood for rejection) for double than single-blind papers. Authors choose double-blind review more frequently when they submit to more prestigious journals, they are affiliated with less prestigious institutions or they are from specific countries; the double-blind option is also linked to less successful editorial outcomes.