Double-Blind Review Policy

for Reviewers

Scribeia implements a double-blind peer review policy to ensure fairness, objectivity, and integrity in the evaluation of manuscripts. Under this model, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process. As a reviewer, you play a central role in upholding this policy and ensuring that the process remains unbiased and confidential.

Purpose of the Double-Blind Review

The double-blind review process minimizes conscious and unconscious bias by preventing reviewers from knowing the authors’ identities. It ensures that each manuscript is judged solely on its scientific merit, clarity, and contribution to knowledge. This practice reflects Scribeia’s commitment to ethical publishing and equality in global research evaluation.

Role of the Reviewer in Maintaining Anonymity

Reviewers are expected to respect and preserve the confidentiality of the double-blind process. Your conduct as a reviewer directly influences the credibility and fairness of the scholarly record.

  • Do not attempt to identify the authors based on content, style, or citations.
  • Base your evaluation exclusively on the manuscript as presented, without speculation about its origin or authorship.
  • Do not search online or contact anyone to determine who the authors might be.
  • Keep all information about the manuscript strictly confidential, even after completing the review.

Editorial Safeguards

To protect anonymity, Scribeia follows strict editorial procedures:

  • Authors submit an anonymized version of their manuscript with no identifying information.
  • The editorial team reviews and confirms anonymization before sending the manuscript to reviewers.
  • All correspondence between reviewers and authors is handled through the editorial system—never directly.
  • Reviewer identities are kept strictly confidential and are not shared with authors, other reviewers, or external parties.

Reviewer Conduct and Confidentiality

Confidentiality is a cornerstone of ethical reviewing. Reviewers are trusted with unpublished material and must handle it responsibly.

  • Do not share, copy, or discuss the manuscript with colleagues or third parties.
  • Do not use any part of the manuscript’s data, methods, or ideas for your own work or advantage.
  • All review materials should be deleted or destroyed after submitting your report.
  • If you recognize the manuscript or believe anonymity has been compromised, notify the editor immediately and refrain from further speculation.

Evaluation Under Double-Blind Conditions

Double-blind review requires reviewers to focus solely on the substance of the work. Judgments should be grounded in evidence, not on assumptions about experience, affiliation, or author identity.

  • Assess originality, rigor, clarity, and ethical integrity of the manuscript objectively.
  • Provide constructive feedback aimed at improving the research, not speculating on who conducted it.
  • Use neutral language; avoid phrases implying familiarity with the authors (“the authors previously showed…”).
  • Base comments and recommendations only on the material presented for review.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must remain alert to any potential conflict of interest that could influence their objectivity. The double-blind system minimizes bias, but conflicts can still arise when the subject matter overlaps with the reviewer’s ongoing work or collaborations.

  • If you suspect a conflict (e.g., the research topic, dataset, or style appears familiar), inform the editor immediately.
  • Do not proceed with the review if you believe you can identify the authors and this affects impartiality.
  • Do not communicate with colleagues about the paper’s content or potential authorship.

Handling Accidental Breaches of Anonymity

Occasionally, a reviewer may inadvertently recognize an author’s identity through citations, data, or prior presentations. If this occurs, reviewers should handle the situation with discretion and transparency.

  • Contact the handling editor immediately and describe the situation.
  • Continue the review only if the editor determines that objectivity will not be compromised.
  • Do not disclose the author’s identity or your discovery to anyone else.

Post-Decision Confidentiality

After the review process concludes, reviewer identities remain confidential. Authors will never be informed of who reviewed their work. Scribeia does not permit reviewers to reveal their participation publicly unless the journal explicitly adopts an open review model with consent from all parties.

Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers may use AI tools for minor assistance—such as grammar checks or summarizing their own notes—but not for evaluating manuscripts, generating review content, or storing confidential files. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content and tone of their reviews.

Violations of Anonymity and Ethical Breaches

Any deliberate attempt to identify or disclose an author’s identity, or to share a manuscript without permission, violates Scribeia’s ethical standards. Such breaches may lead to removal from the reviewer pool and, in serious cases, notification to the reviewer’s institution.

Commitment to Fairness

The double-blind review policy reflects Scribeia’s belief that all authors deserve equal consideration. By upholding anonymity, reviewers help eliminate bias, promote diversity, and strengthen confidence in the integrity of scientific publishing.

Contact

For questions regarding these policies or ethical concerns, contact:
Editorial Office, Scribeia Publishing
Email: editorial@scribeia.com