In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

With triple-blind journals, what happens if the chief editor knows that a submitted paper is yours? I assume they don't pretend not to know, so do they defer to an associate editor, or desk reject, etc? Similarly, what if the relevant associate editor (area specialist) knows the paper is yours? I'd hope there are ways around this problem, but if not then it seems to suggest that we should avoid discussing our work with editors from journals we want to submit to, which seems rather silly.

Interesting questions. While there is presumably no foolproof way of ensuring absolute anonymity in peer-review, even at triple-anonymized journals, I wonder whether such journals have processes in place to at least mitigate this kind of problem. For example, if a managing editor, editor-in-chief, or associate editor realizes they know a paper's author, are they expected to pass on the paper to a different editor for initial review?

I'm curious to hear the inside scoop from any editors willing to weigh in!

Posted in

4 responses to “When editors at a triple-anonymized journal know a paper is yours?”

  1. Circe

    You’re overthinking this. Certainly they wouldn’t desk reject! They will suggest referees. The editorial assistant will approach the referees. Referees will send in their reports. Yes, the editor (or another one, if they defer, which they might not…) will make a judgment based on those; rarely, however, is there scope for independent judgment. Many journals decide on R+Rs, rejections, etc. algorithmically. For instance, one prominent journal I know has the rule that two R+R verdicts (or better) = R+R while reject plus R+R = Reject. Another journal I know is more discinerning and requires one acceptance report and one R+R report (or better) for an R+R. Journals are swamped and have to make decisions on the fly, so they often follow these kinds of rules–they also do so very carefully in order to preserve the integrity of the journal. Tripple anon review is designed to help weed out bias, but nothing is ever foolproof… And if a journal is making editorial decisions algorithmically, then it matters very little.

  2. At Ethics, if the Editor-in-Chief knows who the author is, then they assign the role of Editor-in-Chief to an Associate Editor for that submission. And if an Associate Editor knows who the author is, they just don’t accept the invitation to review it, and then the invitation goes to a different AE.

  3. Helen De Cruz

    Here’s my 5c.
    I’ve been e-i-c of a triple anonymous journal since July 2023:
    I don’t know who the author is until I go to our management system in Asana and say “accept”. Then our editorial coordinator sends me the contact details of the author, and I send an acceptance notice, copying her in. The editorial coordinator then handles the process of copyright transfer, proofs etc.
    If I desk reject the paper, or reject after comments, I never learn who the author is. Now, we don’t get an enormous amount of submissions, just around 5-6 weekly I think. I have never guessed who an author is. One thing I’ve noticed is that papers that are more polished and that I accept tend to be written by people who speak English as a second language. It’s interesting particularly with regard to recent discourse on linguistic injustice.

  4. Elizabeth Hannon

    BJPS policy dictates that the EiC declares a conflict of interest and keeps out of any and all discussion of the paper. If an Associate Editors knows the author’s identity, we just re-assign the paper to another AE.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading