Music, science, and Blink

July 17 2009, 12:02pm

Why is the peer review system in science a single-blind process instead of double-blind? When I submit a paper to a journal (someday), my reviewers will be able to know my name and the names of all my coauthors. Then I'll get back the reviewers' comments, read all their critiques, design new experiments, and resubmit the paper, all while never knowing who those reviewers are.I've wondered why this super-important process in science is single-blind before. I just finished reading Malcolm Gladwell's Blink, which is about snap judgments made in the blink of an eye. Everyone makes judgments that they're not even aware of. A lot of it is socialization, as seen by tests like the Implicit Association Test (IAT). I've taken the IAT before, and it's a discomfiting experience. Words flash on a screen, and you have to categorize them. In one form, the words consist of names, career-type words, and family-type words. If a word relates to male or career, you click one button. If it relates to female or family, you click another. That one is easy for most people. More tricky is when one button indicates female or career and the other button indicates male or family. People slow down and start making mistakes then.I took a different form of the test, where pictures of black or white people were interspersed with words that were clearly good or bad. To my dismay, the test was more difficult when Good and African American were on the same side of the screen instead of when Good and European American were on the same side. I even knew what the test was looking for because I'd heard of the IAT before. It didn't matter. I still slowed down and made mistakes that showed that I unconsciously associate white people with good and black people with bad. Very uncomfortable. You can take the test too if you want if you visit this website.So what does this have to do with peer review? Let's just say that I wouldn't be surprised if papers coming from well-known labs, labs that deserve respect because of the quality of past science, had an easier time getting published than equally good science done by a less familiar lab. The reviewers probably wouldn't even know that they were favoring the better known labs.As an example from a different field, orchestra auditions became double-blind in the late 1970s. Before then, orchestras were predominantly male. Women are often smaller, so conductors assumed that they had less lung capacity, smaller fingers, and different temperaments, all factors that would harm their instrument-playing abilities. Women tried out for orchestras, but they rarely got in. Then they began auditioning behind a screen. The number of women in top orchestras has increased five-fold since then. Guess what? Ladies can play instruments too! My favorite example from Blink is of Julie Landsman who auditioned for first-chair French horn player. She played beautifully and wowed those who were holding the audition. They immediately told her that she had the role and asked to see her. They were in shock, and not just because she was a woman. No, they were in shock because she was a substitute player for the orchestra, meaning they had all heard her perform before and never realized her amazing talent.We all have implicit biases. Some fields, like music, acknowledge this fact and have altered their hiring structure to minimize the likelihood of bias playing a role. Why hasn't science done so?