Reply To: Blind Review Process

[Anonymous]

The blind review process has always been foundational to academic research, mitigating bias to produce high-quality research. Therefore, I was surprised to read about how the blind review process may not address explicit biases in the form of prejudice. To be candid, I never thought about the blind review process in this way, how the blind review process can potentially perpetuate prejudiced points of view by disseminating research from discriminatory institutions. Kim Manturuk describes her experience organizing a symposium to bring together research and conducting a blind review process. Multiple submissions were accepted from authors representing universities that discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community. These religious institutions have explicit policies prohibiting LGBTQ+ expression, with consequences such as expulsion. The attendees from the symposium provided feedback that they felt hurt, having to listen to lectures about innovative teaching from representatives from these discriminatory institutions.

While Manturuk fails to mention that not every individual at these institutions may have the same beliefs, I believe an individual who chooses to work for such an organization with prejudiced views inherently pushes the institution’s prejudiced agenda, even if unintentionally. The act of representing such an organization causes harm and perpetuates discrimination regardless of the individual’s beliefs and research. I agree with Manturuk’s solution to include a second step to the blind review process: an unblinded review process that ensures the work is aligned with the conference’s or publication’s values. As a future DNP, evaluating the institution I choose to work for and its beliefs and values is essential. Researchers, scholars, and clinicians must be held accountable for the work they produce and the institutions they choose to represent. I want to be proud of the organization I work for and the mission it represents. Furthermore, this article encourages me to evaluate research with a new lens: who published this research, and what do they stand for?