In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:
Why don't all journals adopt triple blind review? Editors act as gatekeepers when they decide to send a manuscript out for review vs. desk reject. Not only this, my understanding is that editors are also given the authority to make the final call; even if the referees recommend, say, R&R the editor can decide to reject. At journals where triple blind review is not practiced, editors make these decisions while also knowing the identity of the author. Why is this permitted? Whether or not they want to admit it, editors manifest biases; biases which will influence these decisions from time to time. Shouldn't we, as a profession, be putting pressure on all journals to adopt triple blind review? I'd like to hear some discussion on this.
Good questions! What do readers think?
Yup, I was going to write the same thing