In this post, I explore the unintended risks posed by URL-shortening services in the context of scientific peer review. While these services offer convenience, their metadata tracking capabilities can compromise the anonymity of reviewers, which is critical to the blind review process. I also propose practical steps for safeguarding reviewer privacy.
A Small Link, A Big Question
It was an ordinary evening in my role as a peer reviewer, sifting through yet another research manuscript. The paper was well-organized, the ideas were thoughtful, and everything appeared in order. While evaluating one of the key arguments, I came across a supporting reference. Its citation was a shortened URL.
Curious to verify the source, I clicked the link. The page loaded smoothly, but I felt a bit uneasy. It was not the content of the link that troubled me, but something about the link itself that caught my attention. The original link was not that long. So, why did the author(s) go out of their way to shorten it? As the unease settled in, I began to wonder: What just happened when I clicked the link? Had I unintentionally shared some data about myself? At that moment, what seemed like a harmless detail became something more troubling: a potential breach of reviewer anonymity.
A Convenience with Consequences
URL-shortening services like Bitly and TinyURL have become so common that we hardly think twice about using them. Such services were created to solve a simple problem: long URLs do not fit neatly into tweets, emails, or presentations. Shortened links are concise, easy to share, and user-friendly.
At its core, the process is straightforward: URL-shortening services simplify lengthy web addresses, such as https://www.example.com/research/privacy-and-security-review/articles/2024/shortened-links, into compact links such as https://bit.ly/3A1bC2D. The shortening service stores the original URL on its servers and assigns it a unique, shortened identifier. When the compact link is clicked, the user’s browser contacts the service to retrieve the stored URL and then redirects the user to the intended destination. This process raises potential privacy concerns, as the intermediate step allows the shortening service to log certain user interactions.
Thus, URL-shortening services do more than just compress URLs; they also facilitate the tracking of clicks and the collection of user data. While this tracking is usually benign and even beneficial for marketers, it poses a significant issue in the context of blind scientific reviews. Blind review depends on anonymity to maintain unbiased evaluations. However, shortened URLs can jeopardize this. Here’s what can be exposed when someone clicks on a shortened link:
- Engagement metrics: Data revealing how many clicks a link has received, along with information on referrers.
- IP addresses and geolocation: This can disclose the user’s location, such as their city or affiliated institution.
- Timestamps: These can be cross-referenced against known events or timelines to identify the user.
- Device information: Details about the user’s device or browser can add another piece to the identification puzzle.
Collectively, these details can compromise the anonymity of reviewers who click the shortened URL.
A Call to Action
It became clear to me that this wasn’t just a technical issue. It touched on the principles of anonymity and fairness that peer review relies on. Protecting these principles requires thoughtful action. Here are some practical steps the academic community can take to address the issue:
- Avoid shortened URLs: Authors should use full URLs in manuscripts under review.
- Update author guidelines for journals: Journals should discourage the use of shortened URLs during the review process.
- Privacy-preserving tools: Developing tools to mitigate this issue, though challenging, can provide solutions. Perhaps an easier solution is to use a Virtual Private Network (VPN) to mask identity while conducting peer review.
- Awareness: Promoting privacy-conscious link sharing can reshape academic habits.
A Lesson Learned
As reviewers, authors, and editors, we all have a role to play in protecting fairness and objectivity in the blind review process. It starts with something simple: being mindful of the tools and practices involved in sharing or accessing information.
Sameer Mehta is an assistant professor in the Technology and Operations Department at Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, the Netherlands. Personal page: https://sameermehta.me/.