Home Forums Blind Review Is Blind to Discrimination Blind Review Process


  • This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 9 months ago by Anonymous.
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
  • #46254

    The article provided above was an interesting and unexpected read. As a student, I honestly inherently trusted the blind review process when reading research articles. After all, its function is to help diminish bias. The article’s author provided a different perspective that explicit bias is not addressed in blind reviews because of the nature of it being blinded. The reason why the author, Kim Manturuk, states blind review has the potential to be discriminatory is due to authors of articles or their affiliated institutions holding discriminatory views or policies against people who identify as LGBTQ+. I understand where the author is coming from and why calling for an improved process for blind reviewing is critical to fighting against prejudice in the research world. However, it is a leap to assume that every researcher at a university or hospital holds the exact same views as the institution they work for. This assumption would also be biased. Does the affiliated institution with discriminatory policy discount the researcher’s work even if the researcher does not hold any discriminatory views? Perhaps there may be more discriminatory research out there than one would expect and I am unaware of it as someone who does not work in academic journal publishing. Having said that, I do agree that an additional unblinded review after the initial blind review that the author mentioned would be a good idea if used appropriately for careful review. As a DNP student, additional transparency about any possible limitations or biases would be beneficial in determining whether a research article indeed provides good quality evidence. In future practice, this would also be helpful in determining whether or not results from specific interventions implemented in studies are reliable or applicable to my patient population and whether they should be included in DNP evidence-based practices.

    • This topic was modified 9 months, 1 week ago by Sarah.

    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?

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.