See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338645987
Double-blind peer review of manuscripts: opportunities, challenges, and way
forward
Article in Physical Therapy Reviews · January 2020
DOI: 10.1080/10833196.2019.1698161
CITATIONS
READS
2
120
3 authors:
Ashokan Arumugam
Poonam Mehta
University of Sharjah
University of Otago
83 PUBLICATIONS 255 CITATIONS
20 PUBLICATIONS 73 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
G D Baxter
University of Otago
407 PUBLICATIONS 12,768 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Neuropathic pain View project
Systematic reviews on knee joint propriocetion View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ashokan Arumugam on 03 July 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
SEE PROFILE
Physical Therapy Reviews
ISSN: 1083-3196 (Print) 1743-288X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yptr20
Double-blind peer review of manuscripts:
opportunities, challenges, and way forward
Ashokan Arumugam, Poonam Mehta & G. David Baxter
To cite this article: Ashokan Arumugam, Poonam Mehta & G. David Baxter (2020) Double-blind
peer review of manuscripts: opportunities, challenges, and way forward, Physical Therapy Reviews,
25:1, 1-6, DOI: 10.1080/10833196.2019.1698161
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10833196.2019.1698161
Published online: 14 Feb 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 24
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yptr20
PHYSICAL THERAPY REVIEWS
2020, VOL. 25, NO. 1, 1–6
https://doi.org/10.1080/10833196.2019.1698161
Double-blind peer review of manuscripts: opportunities, challenges, and
way forward
Peer review is a widely used and accepted process
by which a scientific, academic, or professional
work is evaluated by a group of experts in the relevant fields. Peer review has a long history: the first
use of the process dates to the early seventeenth
Century [1]. Even so, peer review has only been
institutionalized since the 1940s [2] and utilized by
most biomedical journals by the late twentieth century [3].
For academic journals, a peer review helps the
editor(s) to decide about the suitability of the work
for publication. Once a piece of work (manuscript)
is submitted to a journal, the editorial board members assign two or more experts to review the paper
and provide feedback on the scientific merits and
suitability for publication. The editorial team scrutinizes and adjudicates on the reviewers’ comments,
along with or without their own review of the work,
and submits a decision (revise, accept, reject or
resubmit). If the submitted manuscript meets the
best scientific standards, it may be accepted unconditionally, without any revisions. In those cases
where a submitted manuscript does not initially
meet acceptable scientific, language and/or technical
standards (in terms of originality, concept, design,
grammar, syntax, punctuation, etc.), certain amendments and clarification will be requested from the
authors before peer review. If the manuscript does
not fall within the scope of a journal or have a high
similarity index (plagiarism), it might be rejected at
the first instance without any peer review.
Overall, peer review remains the accepted
‘quality-control’ process that involves blinded or
unmasked (open) scrutiny of the authors’ scholarly
(research) work by other experts in the relevant
fields to check its scientific validity and merit. In
this editorial, we consider the opportunities and
challenges of a double-blind peer review process
which has been commonly employed by many
physiotherapy journals. Specifically, we discuss
whether mitigating the challenges in maintaining
the anonymity of the authors is of paramount
importance compared to relying on the quality of
the review, irrespective of the success or failure in
concealing the authors’ identities. Further, we have
CONTACT Ashokan Arumugam
aarumugam@sharjah.ac.ae;
Sciences, University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates.
ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
added a few recommendations to combat the challenges in peer review.
Closed and open peer reviews
Blinding is an overarching term for closed peer
review used by many journals. Based on the level of
blinding, closed peer review has been classified into
three categories: single-blind, double-blind, and triple-blind [4]. As the term indicates, in single-blind
reviews, the reviewers are aware of the authors’
details but not vice versa. In double-blind reviews,
both the reviewers and authors are not aware of
each other’s identity. With triple-blind reviews, the
editors, reviewers, and authors remain anonymous
to each other; this is claimed to best prevent bias
stemming from any persons involved in deciding
the fate of a manuscript.
Open peer review, on the other hand, reveals the
identity of the reviewers and authors to each other.
This system aims at a greater transparency, accountability, and fairness [5], while acknowledging credit
for peer reviewers (via publication of reviewer’s
names/reports alongside the article) [6]. In addition,
other types of peer review based on variables such as
timing (critical appraisal of the manuscript post-publication), transfer (manuscripts with peer-review
reports exchanged between subject-related journals),
and collaboration (a team of reviewers review a manuscript together) have recently evolved (https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/whatis-peer-review/types-of-peer-review.html).
Double-blind peer review process –
opportunities and challenges
Opportunities
Closed peer review, principally double-blind peer
review, is commonly used as part of academic publishing, with the stated aim of preventing bias in
reviewing, e.g. reviewer bias in terms of authors’
expertise (novice vs. expert; early-career vs. senior),
gender (male vs. female), language proficiency
(native [English] speakers vs. non-native speakers),
institution
(research-intensive
vs.
teaching-
ashokanpt@gmail.com
Department of Physiotherapy, College of Health
2
GUEST EDITORIAL
Table 1. A list of Physiotherapy Journals with a double-blind peer review policy.
Journal
Scimago Rank
Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy
Musculoskeletal Science & Practice
Journal of Physiotherapy
Physiotherapy
Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy
Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy
Physical Therapy Reviews
Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy
Pediatric Physical Therapy
Physical Therapy in Sport
Physiotherapy Theory and Practice
Physiotherapy Canada
European Journal of Physiotherapy
The Indian Journal of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy
Journal of Women’s Health Physical Therapy
Physiotherapy Quarterly
Archives of Physiotherapy
Q1
Q1
Q1
Q1
Q1
Q1
Q1
Q1
Q2
Q2
Q2
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q4
Q4
NA
H Index
104
78
61
47
44
32
30
28
42
39
39
22
6
2
1
1
NA
Abbreviations: NA – Not applicable; Q1-Q4 – Quartiles 1-4.
This list is not exhaustive, but it highlights that many physiotherapy journals prefer a double-blind peer review policy for
their manuscripts.
intensive), research group (well-established vs.
unrecognized), country (developed vs. developing/
underdeveloped; high vs. middle/low income),
nationality (author’s vs. reviewer’s), religion, and/or
political identity [4, 7–9].
Challenges
Despite the intention of refereed journals to
improve the content and quality of the scientific
papers published, the peer review process continues
to be criticized for various forms of biases [4, 10],
parochialism [11], conservatism (reluctance towards
accepting groundbreaking or innovative research)
[10], the Hawthorne effect [12], excessive costs [13],
the Matthew effect [14, 15] (supporting papers based
on authors’ reputation rather than relying on the
quality of those papers), a long turnaround time
[10], nonconstructive or over-positive noncritical
reviews [16], lack of adequate number of reviewers
[16], and the inability of reviewers to detect academic fraud (e.g. plagiarism) [17] and/or methodological, statistical, and interpretation shortcomings
[18]. Moreover, we must note that this system is not
a fully objective process because it is based on
reviewers’ opinions, which might differ based on the
factors such as their subject knowledge, level of
expertise, experience, judgements, any conflicts of
interest, etc. [4]. Although reviewers provide a recommendation concerning the decision on a manuscript, the final decision on a manuscript should be
solely determined at the discretion of the editorial
team [4].
A survey conducted by Ceci and Peters (1984)
revealed that three quarters of reviewers of some
psychology journals were ignorant of the authors’
identities; furthermore, only 10% of those who were
able to identify the authors were ‘highly confident’
in their guesses [19]. In contrast, Yankauer (1991)
found that the reviewers of the American Journal of
Public Health seem to correctly identify author and/
or institution around 40% of the time [20]. Blinding
seems to be successful at times but not always.
Furthermore, since these studies were published
there has been a lot of changes in academic research
that might significantly challenge the ability to
adequately blind authors’ identities (see below).
Prevalence of (implicit) biases, amongst others, in
double-blind peer review might be attributed to the
challenges in maintaining the anonymity of the
authors to the reviewers. Though many physiotherapy journals (see Table 1) adopt a double-blind peer
review policy, in concordance with most health
journals, whether double-blinding is fully achieved
remains ambiguous owing to several reasons. Salient
issues include:
Prior registration of systematic review and clinical trial protocols;
Authors’ information publicly available on the
institutional
website/repository and other
(research) social media platforms (ResearchGate,
Google Scholar, LinkedIn, Academia, Twitter,
Facebook, etc.);
Publishing of theses/dissertations online through
an institutional repository;
Secondary analysis of previously published data;
Systematic review updates;
Multiple publications (e.g. publishing the findings of a longitudinal trial periodically), including so called ‘salami-sliced’ publications;
Secondary publications (translation of previously
published paper in one language to the other);
A series of manuscripts (identified as part 1, 2,
etc.) from the same author(s) on a single
topic/study;
Full trials following previously published feasibility or pilot studies;
PHYSICAL THERAPY REVIEWS
Abstracts published previously in conference
proceedings;
Mechanical detection (editorial staff failing to
remove title page or acknowledgements before
sending the manuscript for peer review, authors
including personal acknowledgments or referring
to their earlier work within the main body of
text [19], and conflict of interest and financial
disclosure unmasked in the manuscript owing to
editorial staff oversight);
Use of personalized (self-invented) techniques,
procedures, and analytical methods [19];
(Discriminative) self-citations [20, 21];
Authors with a prolific publication history [21];
Personal knowledge (reviewers being aware of
the researchers (authors) conducting studies in
their own areas of expertise) [20];
Adding pre-prints of their publication in
ResearchGate, institutional repositories, and
other platforms;
Authors suggesting their own (known)
peer reviewers;
Funding bodies publishing a list of research proposals/studies funded by them.
Anonymity versus quality of peer review
Current good research practice guidelines encourage
a priori registration of clinical trials or systematic
reviews (protocols) [22], which would obviously preclude blinding of the authors’ identity when they
are subsequently publishing the findings of their
completed trials or reviews. [23]. Anonymity may
not be a major concern for many journals nowadays. If the reviewers are aware of, or able to
detect, the identity of the authors, then it would
enable the reviewers to compare the authors’ previous works and allow identification of some forms of
plagiarism (duplication, salami-slicing, text-recycling, etc.). Some reviewers claim that knowing
authors’ whereabouts and track record would aid in
adjudicating on the manuscript [20]. In fact, much
of the bias in peer review depends on the ethics and
integrity of the reviewers, and recognizing their own
biases including confirmatory bias. Not-withstanding this, arguably a more significant issue for journals is ensuring the quality of the reviews
performed by the reviewers, rather than maintaining
the anonymity of authors.
Many a researcher, whether novice or expert,
might well accept a request to review manuscripts
even if the subject is out of their expertise. Some
reasons might be – an acknowledgement of the
reviewers’ names in the journal for which they
reviewed, and that some publishers (e.g. Elsevier)
reward their reviewers with an outstanding reviewer
3
award or a certificate of appreciation. If reviewers
are not able to critique the manuscript adequately
because of lack of time and/or expertise, then there
are risks that papers when published may not be of
good quality. Irrespective of blinding or unmasking
authors’ details, it is anecdotally reported that early
career/novice researchers frequently provide more
extensive and critical feedback on submissions than
their experienced colleagues.
Why a researcher should serve as a
peer reviewer?
The peer review process would promote written
expression of the reasoning skills, views, and perceptions, critical thinking ability, and promote professional responsibility of (novice) reviewers [24]. In
particular, indulging in double-blind peer review
would preclude the Hawthorne effect (modifying
their comments/decision because they are being
observed) and facilitate the expression of opinion by
the reviewers.
Through engagement in peer review, students
have been found to demonstrate higher levels of
metacognition (critical thinking, monitoring, planning, and/or regulation) [25]. Similar outcomes
could be expected for peer reviewers of journals.
Active participation in peer review would equip
reviewers with required career experience that
would improve the quality of their feedback as well
as writing their future manuscripts emanating from
their work [26]. Moreover, peer reviewing allows
the reviewers to update their previous knowledge
with the latest research evidence. Being a frequent
reviewer for a journal might augment the chances of
becoming an editorial board member of that journal
(https://editorresources.taylorandfrancis.com/
reviewer-guidelines/).
Ways to mitigate the challenges in
peer review
The most important challenge with the blinded peer
review process is not whether to abandon or adopt
it, but how to improve the quality of it. Some of the
potential strategies that can improve the quality
and/or outcomes of a closed or open peer review
process are discussed below.
Training and supporting reviewers
In order to improve the quality of the research
papers, some sort of formal training and mentoring
should be provided to early career researchers or
novice reviewers for appropriately evaluating
important components of a manuscript and,
4
GUEST EDITORIAL
specifically, the factors contributing to risk of bias
in the findings of the study [27, 28]. Early career
reviewers learn the process of reviewing either by
trial and error or with the guidance of an experienced reviewer; for instance, PhD students mentored by their supervisors who might be experienced
and/or skillful reviewers.
The editors of “International Journal of Exercise
Science” have published certain guidelines for students and academic professionals for peer reviewing
in the field of Exercise science [29, 30]. Following
such guidelines, undertaking some form of online
training and support by research organizations or
journals would enhance the peer reviewing skills
and may mitigate the risks associated with poor
peer review [31]. In addition, such training courses
could provide continuing education units or credits
[32]. Moreover, providing a detailed feedback on
the peer review reports to the reviewers would help
in improving the outcomes of the peer
review process.
Rigorous selection and availability of reviewers
The goal of every editor is to find skilled and knowledgeable reviewers who will do a credible job of
providing a critical yet constructive review of a
manuscript. At the same time, early career reviewers
might avail every opportunity to be a reviewer as
they get the chance to review someone else’s work
and provide a thoughtful feedback on it. Further,
employing junior researchers such as early career
researchers, postdoctoral researchers, research fellows, and graduate students will increase the available number of reviewers [26]. Despite selecting a
reviewer based on their experience (novices or
experts), the editors should choose them based on
their qualifications, expertise, and areas of research
interests matching with those of the scope of the
manuscripts.
It should be a mutual responsibility for both editors and reviewers to uphold the integrity of peer
review process. This is essential in healthcare
research because the findings of (peer reviewed)
manuscripts may directly influence people’s lives
and, hence, such research must be carefully scrutinized before publication [33].
Standardizing procedures and
reporting guidelines
To ensure the quality of reporting in healthcare
research, many journals require the authors to follow one of the reporting guidelines addressing key
methodological information relevant to the conduct
of their study [34]. Similarly, peer review
documented using a standardized reporting guideline or checklist would address the objectives,
requirements, and outcomes of the process. This
may be an important step to minimize the disparity
in reviewers’ feedback.
Quality checks
To ensure the quality of the peer review report,
using a valid tool among already established scales
or checklists (n ¼ 24) [27] or routine editor’s subjective quality rating [35] could be employed.
Through these methods, the peer review report can
be assessed for its quality or sources of bias.
Currently, none of the available risk of bias
assessment or methodological quality rating tools of
studies of different designs seem to include the type
of peer review process and/or the quality of peer
review reports of the article while assessing the
overall quality of the studies. However, presenting
the review quality scores in addition to the risk of
bias or methodological quality scores of a paper
may ensure the scientific soundness of the study.
Time spent on peer review
Considering the time constraints of academics and
early career researchers, sufficient time should be
allowed to review a manuscript and/or its subsequent revisions. From an editor’s perspective, to
keep a quality control of review process, reviewers
could be asked to report on how long they spent
carrying out the review. There seems no association
between the editors’ assessment of review quality
and the time taken by reviewers to return their
reviews [36]. However, we recommend keeping a
record of time spent on the reviews as a quick feedback for the reviewers to understand if they have
spent enough quality time in reviewing the article.
Rewarding reviewers
The editors should acknowledge that peer reviewers
are volunteers who offer their services despite their
regular work commitments. Without receiving any
reward in return, performance of peer reviewers
tends to deteriorate gradually [37]. Some journals
might reward their reviewers’ by providing an
appreciation certificate, publishing their names in an
issue of their journal, allowing access to certain electronic databases for a few months, subsidizing (open
access) article processing fee waiver for their future
submissions, and allowing free access to the journal’s articles. It would be prudent to introduce a
new metric or index to indicate the number of
manuscripts reviewed annually by each reviewer
PHYSICAL THERAPY REVIEWS
[32]. Perhaps, such a metric might be considered as
an adjunct in evaluation for academic promotions.
For example, Publons is an online platform where
researchers can maintain a verified record of their
work, including their publications, citation metrics,
and peer reviews with a unique ResearcherID
(https://publons.com/about/home/). It offers a free
webinar for training peer reviewers. Further, this
platform allows its members to track and exhibit
their research impact as an author, editor and/or
peer reviewer.
In summary, given the increased demand on the
number of publications and submitted manuscripts
these days, we acknowledge and appreciate the
responsibility that an editorial team carries on to yield
an honest, constructive yet challenging, and unbiased
peer review process. To mitigate the challenges of a
(double-blind) peer review process, amongst other
strategies discussed above, perhaps quality checks and
feedbacks on peer review reports seem very essential.
Even so, alternate peer review processes such as open
reviews could be adopted to gain more transparent
and less biased review reports whenever blinding
authors’ identities is impossible because of the issues
we have discussed in this article. Open peer reviews
could be a potentially useful strategy to promote a
shared responsibility between authors, reviewers, and
editors to uphold the integrity of the peer review process. Having said that, the success of this process
would ultimately depend on the number of reviewers
consenting to reveal their identities.
There is a wide scope for conducting research on
the pros and cons of open and closed peer review
systems in journals publishing studies of physiotherapy, health sciences, and complementary and alternative medicine research. There might be a need for
conferences focusing on the opportunities, challenges, and solutions for different peer review
systems in these scientific disciplines.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Disclosure statement
None declared.
19.
Ethical approval
20.
Not required.
21.
Funding
22.
No internal or external funding was received for preparing the manuscript.
23.
References
1.
ELSEVIER: What is peer review? https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/what-is-peer-review.
24.
5
Rennie D. Editorial peer review: its development and
rationale In: Jefferson T, Godlee F, editors. Peer review
in health sciences. 2nd ed. BMJ Books; 2003. Retrieved
from https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Peer+Review+inþ
Health+Sciences%2C+2nd+Edition-p-9780727916853
Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, et al. The ups and
downs of peer review. Adv Physiol Educ. 2007;31:
145–152.
Ali PA, Watson R. Peer review and the publication
process. Nurs Open. 2016;3:193–202.
Van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, et al. Effect of
open peer review on quality of reviews and on
reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial.
BMJ. 1999;318:23–27.
Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Res. 2017;6:588.
Pinholster G. Journals and funders confront implicit
bias in peer review. Science. 2016;352:1067–1068.
Fox CW, Burns CS, Meyer JA. Editor and reviewer
gender influence the peer review process but not
peer review outcomes at an ecology journal. Funct
Ecol. 2016;30:140–153.
Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart
of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006;99:
178–182.
Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, et al. Bias in peer
review. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec. 2013;64:2–17.
Goldbeck-Wood S. Evidence on peer review-scientific quality control or smokescreen? BMJ (Clin Res
ed). 1999;318:44–45. PubMed PMID: 9872890; eng.
Van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, et al. Effect of
blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer
review. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:622–624.
Smith R. Classical peer review: an empty gun.
Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12:S13.
Merton RK. The Matthew effect in science: The
reward and communication systems of science are
considered. Science. 1968;159:56–63.
Birkmaier D, Wohlrabe K. The Matthew effect in
economics reconsidered. J Informetrics. 2014;8:
880–889.
Rocco TS, Collins JC. The nature of peer-review:
Confessions of a formerly-good reviewer and observations of an emerging scholar. Taylor & Francis;
2012.
Walker R, Rocha da Silva P. Emerging trends in
peer review—a survey. Front Neurosci. 2015;9:169.
Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking
them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled
trial. JAMA. 1998;280:237–240.
Ceci SJ, Peters D. How blind is blind review? Am
Psychol. 1984;39:1491–1494.
Yankauer A. How blind is blind review?. Am J
Public Health. 1991;81:843–845.
Hill S, Provost F. The myth of the double-blind
review? Author identification using only citations.
SIGKDD Explor Newsl. 2003;5:179–184.
PLoS-Medicine-Editors. Best practice in systematic
reviews: the importance of protocols and registration. PLoS Med. 2011;8:e1001009.
De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al. Clinical
trial registration: a statement from the International
Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Circulation.
2005;111:1337–1338.
Kern VM, Saraiva LM, dos Santos Pacheco RC. Peer
review in education: promoting collaboration,
6
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
GUEST EDITORIAL
written expression, critical thinking, and professional
responsibility. Educ Inform Technol. 2003;8:37–46.
Liu E-F, Lin SS, Chiu C-H, et al. Web-based peer
review: the learner as both adapter and reviewer.
IEEE Trans Edu. 2001;44:246–251.
Donaldson MR, Hanson KC, Hasler CT, et al.
Injecting youth into peer-review to increase its sustainability: a case study of ecology journals. IEE.
2010;3.
Superchi C, Gonzalez JA, Sola I, et al. Tools used to
assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med Res
Methodol. 2019;19:48.
Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, et al. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2004;328:673.
Simpson KJ. Reviewing an original research manuscript for the international journal of exercise science: a guide for students and professionals. Int J
Exercise Sci. 2008;1(2):43–49.
Stone WJ, Navalta JW, Lyons TS, et al. From the
editors: a guide for peer review in the field of exercise science. Int J Exercise Sci. 2018;11:1112.
Freda MC, Kearney MH, Baggs JG, et al. Peer
reviewer training and editor support: results from
an international survey of nursing peer reviewers. J
Prof Nurs. 2009;25:101–108.
Ruiz JG, Candler C, Teasdale TA. Peer reviewing elearning: opportunities, challenges, and solutions.
Acad Med. 2007;82:503–507.
Hill CJ. The value of serving as a peer reviewer: an
editorial. IJAHSP. 2018;16:8.
View publication stats
34.
35.
36.
37.
Hirst A, Altman DG. Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116
health research journals. PLoS One. 2012;7:e35621.
Callaham ML, Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, et al.
Reliability of editors’ subjective quality ratings of
peer reviews of manuscripts. JAMA. 1998;280:
229–231.
Black N, Van Rooyen S, Godlee F, et al. What
makes a good reviewer and a good review for a
general medical journal? JAMA. 1998;280:231–233.
Callaham M, McCulloch C. Longitudinal trends in
the performance of scientific peer reviewers. Ann
Emerg Med. 2011;57:141–148.
Ashokan Arumugam
Department of Physiotherapy, College of Health
Sciences, University of Sharjah, Sharjah,
United Arab Emirates
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5795-3812
Poonam Mehta
Graduate School of Health, Discipline of
Physiotherapy, University of Technology Sydney,
Sydney, NSW, Australia
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9307-9648
G. David Baxter
Centre for Health, Activity and Rehabilitation Research
(CHARR), School of Physiotherapy, University of
Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2968-6950