blind review

In academic publishing and scientific research, blind review refers to an evaluation process where the identities of the authors, the reviewers, or both are concealed. The goal is to reduce bias based on gender, seniority, reputation, or institutional affiliation. The term is most commonly found in the variations "single-blind" (reviewers know the author's identity, but the author does not know the reviewers') and "double-blind" (neither party knows the other's identity). The usage relies on a metaphorical definition of "blind" meaning "acting without full knowledge or information," a linguistic habit that dates back centuries in phrases like "blind date" or "blind alley."

The acceptability of the term is currently a subject of debate regarding inclusive language and ableism. Critics argue that using a disability metaphor to describe a lack of knowledge or a limitation equates blindness with ignorance, which can be alienating to visually impaired researchers. Consequently, major organizations like the American Psychological Association (APA) have updated their style guides to prefer terms like "masked review." Conversely, proponents of the term argue that "blind review" is a specific, established term of art in the scientific method; they maintain that the metaphorical usage is distinct from the disability and that replacing it creates ambiguity or confusion regarding the rigor of the methodology.

Example:
"To ensure the integrity of the selection process, all submissions will undergo a double-blind review."

Example:
"The editor sent the manuscript out for blind review to three experts in the field."