Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: A randomised trial

BMJ

Volumn 318, Issue 7175, 1999, Pages 23-27

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

^a BMJ   (United Kingdom)

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

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL;

DECISION MAKING; OBSERVER VARIATION; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; QUALITY CONTROL; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 0033514073     PISSN: 09598138     EISSN: 14685833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S, Black N. The effect of blinding and masking on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial. JAMA 1998; 280: 234–237.
2. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. JAMA 1990; 263: 1371–1376.
3. Godlee F, Gale C, Martyn C. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998; 280: 237–240.
4. Rennie D. Commentary on: Fabiato A. Anonymity of reviewers. Cardiovasc Res 1994; 28: 1142–1143.
5. Lock S. Commentary on: Fabiato A. Anonymity of reviewers. Cardiovasc Res 1994; 28: 1141.
6. Smith R. Commentary on: Fabiato A. Anonymity of reviewers. Cardiovasc Res 1994; 28: 1144.
7. Justice AC, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998; 280: 240–242.
8. Van Rooyen S, Black N, Godlee F. Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. J Clin Epidemiol (in press).
9. Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 1968; 70: 213–220.
10. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review in a general medical journal? JAMA 1998; 280: 231–233.
11. Fleiss J. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley, 1981.