Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance

JAMA

Volumn 295, Issue 14, 2006, Pages 1675-1680

  Ross, Joseph S ^a   Gross, Cary P ^a   Desai, Mayur M ^a   Hong, Yuling ^c   Grant, Augustus O ^d   Daniels, Stephen R ^e,i   Hachinski, Vladimir C ^f   Gibbons, Raymond J ^g   Gardner, Timothy J ^h   Krumholz, Harlan M ^a,b  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b YALE NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION   (United States)

^d DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^e CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^f LAWSON HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^g Mayo Clinic   (United States)

^h CHRISTIANA CARE HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

ⁱ Children's Hospital Colorado   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTHOR; CLASSIFICATION; GOVERNMENT; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW; LANGUAGE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; RACE; SEX; DOCUMENTATION; PUBLISHING;

ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLICATION BIAS;

EID: 33645739413     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: 15383598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.295.14.1675     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Garfunkel JM, Ulshen MH, Hamrick HJ, Lawson EE. Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers' recommendations and editorial decisions. JAMA. 1994;272:137-138.
2. Link AM. US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA. 1998;280:246-247.
3. Olson CM, Rennie D, Cook D, et al. Publication bias in editorial decision making. JAMA. 2002;287:2825-2828.
4. Kliewer MA, DeLong DM, Freed K, Jenkins CB, Paulson EK, Provenzale JM. Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183:1545-1550.
5. Gilbert JR, Williams ES, Lundberg GD. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? JAMA. 1994;272:139-142.
6. Godlee F, Jefferson T. Peer Review in Health Sciences. 2nd ed. London, England: BMJ Publishing Group; 2003:101-102.
7. Kassirer JP, Campion EW. Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA. 1994;272:96-97.
8. Hojat M, Gonnella JS, Caelleigh AS. Impartial judgment by the "gatekeepers" of science: fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2003;8:75-96.
9. Bachand RG, Sawallis PP. Accuracy in the identification of scholar and peer-reviewed journals and the peer-review process across disciplines. Ser Libr. 2003;45:39-59.
10. Eldredge J. Characteristics of peer reviewed clinical journals. Med Ref Serv Q. 1999;18:13-26.
11. TIME 2005 Almanac. Needham, Mass: Pearson Education Inc; 2004.
12. National Institutes of Health. Award data. Available at: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/award/award.htm. Accessed October 11, 2005.
13. America's best hospitals. US News & World Report. 2000-2004. Available at: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/health/best-hospitals /tophosp.htm. Accessibility verified March 16, 2006.
14. Cho MK, Justice AC, Winker MA, et al; PEER Investigators. Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? JAMA. 1998;280:243-245.
15. Fisher M, Friedman S, Strauss B. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA. 1994;272:143-146.