Masking author identity in peer review. What factors influence masking success?

JAMA

Volumn 280, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 243-245

  Cho, Mildred K ^a   Justice, Amy C ^b,c   Winker, Margaret A ^h   Berlin, Jesse A ^d   Waeckerle, Joseph F ^e   Callaham, Michael L ^f   Rennie, Drummond ^g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b LOUIS STOKES CLEVELAND VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS OF CLEVELAND   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI KANSAS CITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^h University of Pennsyvania ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EXPERIENCE; MASKING; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PEER REVIEW; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUESTIONNAIRE;

EID: 0032527550     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.3.243     Document Type: Article

References (5)

1. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D, and the PEER Investigators. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;280:240-242.
2. Yankauer A. How blind is blind review? Am J Public Health. 1991;81:843-845.
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. Moossy J, Moossy YR. Anonymous authors, anonymous referees: an editorial exploration. J Neuropath Exp Neurol. 1985;44:225-228.
5. Fisher M, Friedman SB, Strauss B. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA. 1994;272:143-146.