PUBLISHING YOUR RESEARCH This is especially the case if the journal positively needs copy
just to keep its pages filled, or is struggling to keep alive the apparent level of interest in their viewpoint or their subfield. However, there are important exceptions to this general pattern. In many humanities, arts and social science disciplines there are still quite prestigious journals with large circulations, which nonetheless do not operate on the basis of professional-standard peer group refereeing.
In addition to the number
of opinions that editors seek, there are also important differences in the conditions under which refereeing takes place. The best journals tend to use a double- blind system of refereeing. Here anything that would identify the author is removed before the paper goes to referees. The referee then writes an anonymous comment, which normally comes back to you. (To comply with this approach, you usually need to have two title pages on a paper you submit. The first
shows all the author names, their university affiliations and any other identifying elements, such as a note of thanks. The journal removes this page before sending the paper out to referees.
The second page is retained and shows only the article title without any author-identifying elements) This system is supposed to protect new authors from being rejected just because they are unknown. It is meant to put them more on an even plane with established authors. It is also supposed to prevent rivalries between academic personalities colouring what referees write, and to prevent any automatic taking sides by referees. At the same time referees anonymity ensures that they can be frank and say what they really think, without worrying that adverse professional consequences might attach to them in future if they comment unfavourably.
Some journals now use‘single-blind’ refereeing, where referees know who authors are but can still comment anonymously. The final option is an
‘open’ approach where referees know who authors are and authors know who has commented on their work. Some editors feel that double-blind
refereeing is fake, because experienced referees can usually scan the literature references and workout who authors are. Equally, sheltering behind the cloak of anonymity, unaccountable referees maybe overly critical or negative in their reviews. But most professional association journals still abide by the double-blind system, and in my view its value for new authors is still considerable.