Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial

JAMA

Volumn 280, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 240-242

  Justice, Amy C ^a,e   Cho, Mildred K ^b   Winker, Margaret A ^f   Berlin, Jesse A ^c   Rennie, Drummond ^d  

^a CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

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

EID: 0032527565     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.3.240     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review. Sci Eng Ethics. 1997;3: 35-43.
2. Cleary JD, Alexander B. Blind versus nonblind review: survey of selected medical journals. Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1988;22:601-602.
3. Pitkin RM. Blinded manuscript review: an idea whose time has come? Obstet Gynecol. 1995;85:781-782.
4. Moossy J, Moossy YR. Anonymous authors, anonymous referees: an editorial exploration. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 1985;44:225-228.
5. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. JAMA. 1990;263:1371-1376.
6. Yankauer A. How blind is blind review? Am J Public Health. 1991;81:843-845.