title: 'Double b(l)ind': Peer-review and the politics of scholarship.
abstract: Abstract The double-blind peer-review of manuscripts for potential publication is a longstanding tradition in the production of scholarship. Nursing has adopted this tradition to secure a place of legitimacy and authority for its scholarship amongst the other disciplines in the academy. However, despite its ubiquity and avowed utility, the peer-review has not generally been the subject of much research let alone intense philosophical scrutiny and debate. This manuscript attempts such an engagement with a view to uncovering specific concerns about the essentially conservative and sometimes restrictive effects the double-blind peer-review produces. Drawing on the deconstructionist writings of Derrida and his acolytes this paper attempts to dig beneath the surface mechanics of the double-blind peer-review and in so doing, expose its rather shaky philosophical foundations. It is written to open debate from others who too, have harboured doubts about its adequacy and supremacy as a technology in the production of (legitimate) knowledge.
authors.affiliation: Practice Development and Research Coordinator, St Vincent's Private Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
authors.forename: Kim
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Walker
mesh_terms: D004311:Double-Blind Method; D006801:Humans; D015399:Nursing Research; D017712:Peer Review, Research; D011057:Politics