Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports. A randomized controlled trial

JAMA

Volumn 280, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 237-240

  Godlee, Fiona ^a   Gale, Catharine R ^b   Martyn, Christopher N ^b  

^a BMJ   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCOUNTING; ARTICLE; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZATION; WRITING;

EID: 0032527549     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.3.237     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. Fisher M, Friedman SB, Strauss B. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA. 1994;272:143-146.
2. 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.
3. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. JAMA. 1990;263:1371-1376.
4. Gale CR, Martyn CN, Cooper C. Cognitive impairment and mortality in a cohort of elderly people. BMJ. 1996;312:608-611.
5. Nylenna M, Riis P, Karlsson Y. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. JAMA. 1994; 272:149-151.
6. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N. What makes a good reviewer and what makes a good review? Paper presented at: Third International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication; September 17, 1997; Prague, Czech Republic.