Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Sun, M."
  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Sun, M.; Danfa, J.B.; Teplitskiy, M.: Does double-blind peer review reduce bias? : evidence from a top computer science conference (2022) 0.03 
    0.03413015 = sum of:
  0.021385957 = product of:
    0.085543826 = sum of:
      0.085543826 = weight(_text_:authors in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.085543826 = score(doc=562,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.24018547 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052685954 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01274419 = product of:
    0.02548838 = sum of:
      0.02548838 = weight(_text_:m in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02548838 = score(doc=562,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13110629 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052685954 = queryNorm
          0.19441006 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    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 review has been proposed as a way to reduce reviewer bias, but the evidence for its effectiveness is limited and mixed. Here, we examine the effects of double-blind peer review by analyzing the review files of 5,027 papers submitted to a top computer science conference that changed its reviewing format from single- to double-blind in 2018. First, we find that the scores given to the most prestigious authors significantly decreased after switching to double-blind review. However, because many of these papers were above the threshold for acceptance, the change did not affect paper acceptance significantly. Second, the inter-reviewer disagreement increased significantly in the double-blind format. Third, papers rejected in the single-blind format are cited more than those rejected under double-blind, suggesting that double-blind review better excludes poorer quality papers. Lastly, an apparently unrelated change in the rating scale from 10 to 4 points likely reduced prestige bias significantly such that papers' acceptance was affected. These results support the effectiveness of double-blind review in reducing biases, while opening new research directions on the impact of peer-review formats.
  2. Xu, H.; Bu, Y.; Liu, M.; Zhang, C.; Sun, M.; Zhang, Y.; Meyer, E.; Salas, E.; Ding, Y.: Team power dynamics and team impact : new perspectives on scientific collaboration using career age as a proxy for team power (2022) 0.01 
    0.006372095 = product of:
  0.01274419 = sum of:
    0.01274419 = product of:
      0.02548838 = sum of:
        0.02548838 = weight(_text_:m in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02548838 = score(doc=663,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13110629 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052685954 = queryNorm
            0.19441006 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Authors