Double-Blind Review as a Solution to Gender Inequality in Legal Scholarship

Abstract

Research into non-legal academic scholarship reveals that when journals implement blind review female authorship increases. Only four flagship law journals implement blind review. This allows for the unique ability to measure the rates of female authorship in these blinded law journals compared to comparable non-blinded law journals. If female authors are disproportionately published in the law journals that implement blind review, this would be evidence that non-blinded journals discriminate against female authors. This outcome would also provide strong evidence supporting advocacy for more blind review in legal scholarship. The results of this first-of-its-kind study will help better inform authors as to the review process, law journals as to the likely effects of blind review, and the greater academic community as to potential biases in academic publishing. Furthermore, the results invite future replication in other academic areas of scholarship to measure potential changes over time and cross-disciplinary differences.