Since Nature Nanotechnology launched in October 2006, our approach to peer review has been the same. We, like most science journals, use ‘single-blind’ peer review: that is, the referees of a paper know who the authors are but the authors don’t know who the referees are. We are now making a change to this process and will offer ‘doubleblind’ peer review — in which referees review a paper withou...

The impact of introducing double-blind reviewing in the most recent Evolution of Language conference is assessed. The ranking of papers is compared between EvoLang 11 (double-blind review) and EvoLang 9 and 10 (single-blind review). Main effects were found for first author gender by conference. The results mirror some findings in the literature on the effects of double-blind review, suggesting ...

Peer review is essential for advancing scientific research, but there are long-standing concerns that authors' prestige or other characteristics can bias reviewers. Double-blind peer has been proposed as a way to reduce reviewer bias, the evidence its effectiveness limited and mixed. Here, we examine effects of double-blind by analyzing files 5,027 papers submitted top computer science conferen...

Drawing on Henri Meschonnic’s notion of an “inscient ethics,” and putting “inscience” into dialogue with the old ideal of a “science” of translation, the article explores the collective socio-affective ecologies that organize and regulate social and professional norms and values of translation below the level of conscious awareness—as the true underlying structure not only of “subjectivity” (so...

The Peer Review Methodology Used in the Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics is Based on three-tier reviews: open (or non-blind), double-blind, and participative reviews. Final acceptance depends of the three kinds of reviews but a paper should be recommended by nonblind reviewers AND blind reviewers in order to be accepted for publication. A recommendation to accept made by non-b...