Google is one of the greatest inventions ever. Immediate access to unlimited information. Unfortunately it has also rendered the practice of double-blind review of academic manuscripts virtually meaningless.
It may be wrong, or unethical, or whatever, but as soon as I open my inbox and see this...
Dear Prof. Timothy C. Haab,
You are invited to review the above-mentioned manuscript that has been submitted for publication in [redacted to prevent me being labelled an a-hole by the editor].
The manuscript abstract is attached below. If you are willing to review this manuscript, please click on the link below:
[redacted]
If you are NOT able to review this manuscript, please click on the link below. We would appreciate receiving suggestions for alternative reviewers:
[redacted]
...I immediately cut and paste the title of the above-mentioned manuscript into Google and 9 times out of 10 find the author(s).
I'm pretty sure I'm not alone, and my concern is that the review process now succumbs to significant reviewer bias. Many of the big journals have long uses a single-blind review process, but those journals want reviewer bias. They would much rather publish a new paper by Arrow than have readers left wondering, 'Who the f*** is Tim Haab?'
Lesser journals--you know, as low as top level field journals--often provide young unknown authors access through a double-blind review. Google-bias makes it harder for the underpriveleged fledgling academic (you know, non-ivy league graduate) to crack good journals. I have no evidence to support my claims, just a feeling.
Oh, and I almost never suggest alternative reviewers.
Unless I'm pissed at John, then I suggest him.
Yes, I'm a jerk.
