Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-xxrs7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T14:03:14.167Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Guest Column No Bias, No Merit: The Case against Blind Submission

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Extract

WHEN members of an institution debate, it may seem that they are arguing about fundamental principles, but it is more often the case that the truly fundamental principle is the one that makes possible the terms of the disagreement and is therefore not in dispute at all. I am thinking in particular of the arguments recently marshaled for and against blind submission to the journal of the Modern Language Association. Blind submission is the practice whereby an author's name is not revealed to the reviewer who evaluates his or her work. It is an attempt, as William Schaefer explained in the MLA Newsletter, “to ensure that in making their evaluations readers are not influenced by factors other than the intrinsic merits of the article” (4). In his report to the members, Schaefer, then executive director of the association, declared that he himself was opposed to blind submission because the impersonality of the practice would erode the humanistic values that are supposedly at the heart of our enterprise. Predictably, Schaefer's statement provoked a lively exchange in which the lines of battle were firmly, and, as I will argue, narrowly, drawn. On the one hand those who agreed with Schaefer feared that a policy of anonymous review would involve a surrender “to the spurious notions about objectivity and absolute value that … scientists and social scientists banter about”; on the other hand those whose primary concern was with the fairness of the procedure believed that “[j]ustice should be blind” (“Correspondence” 4). Each side concedes the force of the opposing argument—the proponents of anonymous review admit that impersonality brings its dangers, and the defenders of the status quo acknowledge that it is important to prevent “extraneous considerations” from interfering with the identification of true merit (5).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

Bledstein, B. J. The Culture of Professionalism. New York: Norton, 1977.Google Scholar
Correspondence.” MLA Newsletter 10.3 (1978): 46.Google Scholar
Haskell, Thomas L. The Emergence of Professional Social Science. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1977.Google Scholar
Howard, Jean. “The New Historicism in Renaissance Studies.” English Literary Renaissance 16 (1986): 1343.10.1111/j.1475-6757.1986.tb00896.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1962.Google Scholar
Larson, M. S. The Rise of Professionalism. Berkeley: U of California P, 1977.Google Scholar
Montrose, Louis. “Renaissance Literary Studies and the Subject of History.” English Literary Renaissance 16 (1986): 512.10.1111/j.1475-6757.1986.tb00895.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ransom, John Crowe. The World's Body. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UP, 1938.Google Scholar
Schaefer, William D.Anonymous Review: A Report from the Executive Director.” MLA Newsletter 10.2 (1978): 46.Google Scholar
Waddington, Raymond. “The Death of Adam: Vision and Voice in Books XI and XII of Paradise Lost.” Modern Philology 70 (1972): 921.10.1086/390372CrossRefGoogle Scholar