Response to Article

[Jannel]

The article raises into question the point of possible limitations of the blind peer-review process in academic research. While blind review has been the basis for ensuring impartiality and reducing bias, it can inadvertently perpetuate institutional discrimination, as highlighted by the experience shared from the Pandemic Pedagogy Research Symposium (PPRS).
The concern is not with blind review itself, but with the potential oversight of how institutional practices can create exclusivity. The example of institutions with discriminatory policies being included in the symposium underscores a significant issue: blind review may allow work from institutions with conflicting values to be presented without considering their broader ethical implications. The example in the article addressed the possible discriminatory practices of religious academic centers in their research.
It is important to acknowledge that blind review has its shown to avoid personal biases during the evaluation of research quality. However, it is equally important to recognize its limitations in addressing systemic issues. The integration of an additional layer of review, focusing on the values and practices of the institutions involved, could serve as an important step towards a more inclusive and ethical academic environment.
The suggestion to include a final unblinded review or a values-based screening is a constructive approach to ensure that the research content discovered aligns with the ethical standards of the event or publication. This method would not only address explicit bias but also help in holding institutions accountable for their practices, fostering a more equitable academic community.
Ultimately, this approach can serve as a catalyst for broader systemic change, encouraging institutions to reflect on their policies and potentially leading to improved practices across the board. The call to combine blind review with value-based overview offers a balanced path forward, maintaining the integrity of peer evaluation while actively addressing and mitigating discrimination. This shift would not only enhance the quality and inclusivity of academic discourse but also contribute to a more just and equitable scholarly environment.

[Author]

Posts