INFORMS Open Forum

  • 1.  INFORMS journals are migrating towards a "Double-Anonymous Review Process"

    Posted 10-31-2024 17:39

    INFORMS journals are migrating towards a "Double-Anonymous Review Process"

    I am pleased to report that the INFORMS Board has approved a new policy to adopt the double-anonymous review process. This policy received majority support from our EICs and the publication committee, and unanimous support from our INFORMS board members.

    Double-anonymous review is a type of peer review in which the identities of the authors and reviewers are masked from one another. In contrast, in single-anonymous review, the identities of the authors are revealed to the reviewers. While ensuring absolute anonymity is not always possible, the double-anonymous approach has a demonstrable track record (across a wide range of disciplines) of reducing bias.

    Over the past few years, several INFORMS journals have independently committed to adopting double-anonymous review including: Decision Analysis (in January 2020), and Operations Research and Transportation Science (in January 2024).

    Currently, there are only five remaining journals operating under single-anonymous review. These journals - Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS Journal of Data Sciences, INFORMS Journal of Optimization, and Stochastic Systems - cover disciplines with robust pre-print cultures in which single-anonymous review has been the norm.

    While the double-anonymous review policy will officially take effect on January 1, 2025, to ensure a smooth transition, the change for the five journals mentioned above will occur with the next EIC appointment or renewal.

    Adopting the double-anonymous review process across all INFORMS journals underscores our commitment to fairness, and I thank you for your support. 

    Thank you,

    Chris Tang



    ------------------------------
    Christopher Tang
    Distinguished Professor
    ucla
    Los Angeles CA
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: INFORMS journals are migrating towards a "Double-Anonymous Review Process"

    Posted 11-01-2024 17:55

    Kudos to Chris Tang for another step forward!

    For journals covering disciplines with robust pre-print cultures, there is no harm in double-blind. With double-blind sometimes the authors are not known to the reviewers through other means (e.g. pre-print, writing style/topic of writing). Thus, double blind is superior (even with pre-prints) to the reviewer always knowing the authors.



    ------------------------------
    John Milne
    Clarkson University
    Potsdam, NY
    jmilne@clarkson.edu
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: INFORMS journals are migrating towards a "Double-Anonymous Review Process"

    Posted 11-02-2024 08:27
    Dear Professor Tang, 
    Dear Chris,
     
    Thank you very much for your exemplary commitment to our INFORMS and the OR-MS global community! 
     
    They have moved us forward strongly and successfully, both in terms of quantity and - especially - quality. Your progress in the reviewing and editorial services, which you report on here, provides impressive, pleasant and eloquent information about this.
     
    In fact, I well imagine that this example from INFORMS will have a very instructive and exemplary meaning for many other journals, also from other regions of the world. 
     
    Europe, from where I am currently writing to you, also belongs to these regions. In particular, your many Polish friends that you met during your visit here may be very interested in this new information of yours.
     
    The reviewing service and, last but not least, the editorial and publishing service and industry have immense educational and, in a comprehensive sense, developmental and biographical significance for the members of our community, regardless of which country and continent they come from.
     
    Thank you very much again!
     
    Thanks a lot also to the INFORMS team for making this new discussion and thread possible and hosting it so excellently.
     
    With best wishes,
    sincere regards,
    Willi (Gerhard-Wilhelm Weber)


    ------------------------------
    Gerhard-Wilhelm Weber
    Professor
    Poznan University of Technology
    Poznan
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: INFORMS journals are migrating towards a "Double-Anonymous Review Process"

    Posted 11-09-2024 01:31

    I agree with the decision to move towards a double-anonymous review process. This step is essential in promoting fairness and reducing potential biases. However, I believe the policy could go even further. In certain cases, even the Editor-in-Chief should be unaware of the authors' identities until a final decision is made. Too often, the reasoning behind rejecting papers can feel tenuous, especially when subjectivity plays a role. At the very least, EiCs should avoid stepping in as additional reviewers or examining other reviewers' comments prematurely, as this can introduce confirmation or anchoring bias that may influence their decisions.

    That said, having served as a reviewer for conferences like ICLR, NeurIPS, and AAAI, where the double-anonymous review process has been in place for quite some time, I have observed the challenges of implementing double-blind policies in fast-moving fields where researchers frequently post preprints. Despite anonymization efforts, identifying authors often becomes possible, which undermines the benefits of double anonymity. Moreover, within the close-knit research community, where it sometimes feels like a "small town" of familiar faces, the lines between anonymized and identifiable research can blur further, making the true impact of double anonymity limited.

    Overall, this policy is certainly a positive step toward greater objectivity and impartiality.



    ------------------------------
    Mikhail Bragin
    Project Scientist
    University of California, Riverside
    Marina del Rey CA
    ------------------------------



Related Content