The Effects of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review

JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association

Volumn 272, Issue 2, 1994, Pages 143-146

  Fisher, Martin ^a   Friedman, Stanford B ^b   Strauss, Barbara ^c  

^a WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

^b ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; EPIDEMIOLOGY; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; SCORING SYSTEM; WRITING;

EID: 0028229499     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: 15383598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.1994.03520020069019     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Cleary JD, Alexander B. Blind vs non-blind reviews: survey of selected medical journals. Drug Intell Clin Pharmacol. 1988;22:601-602.
2. Morgan PD. Anonymity in medical journals. Can Med Assoc J. 1984;131:1007-1008.
3. Squires BP. Editor's page: blinding the reviewers. Can Med Assoc J. 1990;142:279.
4. Rennie D, ed. Editorial peer review in biomedical publication: the first international conference. JAMA. 1990;263:1317-1341.
5. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1990;263:1371-1376.
6. Zar JH. Biostatistical Analysis. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc; 1984:176-179.
7. Peters D, Ceci S. Peer review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles submitted again. Behav Brain Sci. 1982;165:187-195.
8. Ceci S, Peters D. How blind is blind review? Am Psychol. 1984;39:1491-1494.
9. Rosenblatt A, Kirk SA. Recognition of authors in blind review of manuscripts. J Soc Serv Res. 1980;3:383-394.
10. Blank RM. The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from the American Economic Review. Am Econ Rev. 1991;81:1041-1067.
11. Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good reviews. Read before the Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication; September 9, 1993; Chicago, Ill.
12. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The effects of blinding on editors' decision making. Read before the Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication; September 11, 1993; Chicago, Ill.
13. Harnad S. Peer commentary on peer review (special symposium issue). Behav Brain Sci. 1982; 5:185-256.
14. Yankauer A. Peer review again. Am J Public Health. 1982;72:239-240.
15. Strasburger VC. Righting medical writing. JAMA. 1985;254:1789-1790.
16. Bailar JC III, Patterson K. Journal peer review: the need for a research agenda. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:654-657
17. Shapiro S. The decision to publish: ethical dilemmas. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38:365-372.
18. Robin ED, Burke CM. Peer review in medical journals. Chest. 1987;91:252-255.
19. Feinstein AR. Some ethical issues among editors, reviewers and readers. J Chronic Dis. 1986; 39:491-493.
20. Lock S. A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine. Philadelphia, Pa: ISI Press; 1985.
21. Kupfersmid J. Improving what is published: a model in search of an editor. Am Psychol. 1988;43: 635-642.
22. Mahoney MJ, Kazdin AE, Kenigsberg M. Getting published: the effects of self-citation and institutional affiliation. Cogn Ther Res. 1978;2:69-70.
23. Lloyd ME. Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication. J Appl Behav Anal. 1990;23:539-543.
24. Garfunkel JM, Hamrick HJ, Lawson EE, Vishen MH. Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers' recommendations and editorial decisions. Read before the Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication; September 11, 1993; Chicago, Ill.
25. Gilbert J, Williams E, Lundberg GD. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? Read before the Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication; September 11, 1993; Chicago, Ill.