Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial

JAMA

Volumn 280, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 234-237

  Van Rooyen, Susan ^a,c   Godlee, Fiona ^a   Evans, Stephen ^b   Smith, Richard ^a   Black, Nick ^b  

^a BMJ   (United Kingdom)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^c BRITISH MEDICAL ASSOCIATION   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; MASKING; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; SCORING SYSTEM;

EID: 0032527564     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.3.234     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Lock S. A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine. London, England: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust; 1985.
2. Kassirer JP, Campion EW. Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA. 1994; 272:96-97.
3. Fisher M, Friedman SB, Strauss B. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA. 1994;272:143-146.
4. Strasburger VC. Righting medical writing. JAMA. 1985;254:1789-1790.
5. Yankauer A. Peer review again. Am J Public Health. 1982;72:239-240.
6. Shapiro S. The decision to publish: ethical dilemmas. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38:365-372.
7. Ingelfinger FJ. Peer review in biomedical publication. Am J Med. 1974;56:686-692.
8. Robin ED, Burke CM. Peer review in medical journals. Chest. 1987;91:252-255.
9. Feinstein AR. Some ethical issues among editors, reviewers and readers. J Chronic Dis. 1986; 39:491-493.
10. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. JAMA. 1990;263:1371-1376.
11. Laband DN, Piette MJ. A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. JAMA. 1994:272: 147-149.
12. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA. 1998;280:231-233.