Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial

British Journal of Psychiatry

Volumn 176, Issue JAN., 2000, Pages 47-51

  Walsh, Elizabeth ^a   Rooney, Maeve ^a   Appleby, Louis ^a   Wilkinson, Greg ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEASIBILITY STUDY; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REVIEW;

FEASIBILITY STUDIES; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW; POSTAL SERVICE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 0033963369     PISSN: 00071250     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1192/bjp.176.1.47     Document Type: Review

References (8)

1. Black, N., van Rooyen, S.,Godlee, F., et al (1996) What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 231-233.
2. Cook, R. J. & Sackett, D. L. (1995) The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. British Medical Journal, 310, 452-454.
3. Godlee, F., Gale, C. R. & Martyn, C. N. (1998) Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports. A randomised controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 237-240.
4. Hyams, K. C. (1994) Letter. Lancet 34, 132-133.
5. McNutt, R. A., Evans, A. T., Fletcher, R. H., et al (1990) The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: a randomised trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1371-1376.
6. Smith, R. (1999) Opening up BMJ peer review. A beginning that should lead to complete transparency. British Medical Journal, 318, 4-5.
7. SPSS (1996) SPSS for Windows: Base System User's Guide. Release 7.5.1. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
8. van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., et al (1999) Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. British Medical Journal, 318, 23-27.