I found it interesting when looking for academic jobs a long time back
that faculty I spoke to at some small schools felt that reviewers were
excessively critical of their work versus papers that originated from
"name" schools. Of course, there may be other reasons (as I am sure
scientists from name schools might quickly reply), but I was wondering
whether or not any journals ever review papers either completely blind
(no mention of the authors' identity and affiliation) or partially
blind (e.g., no mention of the affiliation)? This might be an
interesting experiment?!?
Sincerely,
Dave Kristofferson
BIOSCI/bionet Manager
kristoff at net.bio.net
