How masked is the "masked peer review" of abstracts submitted to international medical conferences?

Mayo Clinic Proceedings

Volumn 81, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 705-

  Falagas, Matthew E ^a,b   Zouglakis, George M ^c   Kavvadia, Panorea K ^c  

^a HENRY DUNANT HOSPITAL   (Greece)

^b TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c ALFA INSTITUTE OF BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES AIBS   (Greece)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LETTER; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE;

EID: 33646415090     PISSN: 00256196     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4065/81.5.705     Document Type: Letter

References (5)

1. Yankauer A. How blind is blind review [published correction appears in Am J Public Health. 1991;81:1570]? Am J Public Health. 1991;81:843-845.
2. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D, PEER Investigators. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? a randomized controlled trial [published correction appears in JAMA. 1998;280:968]. JAMA. 1998;280:240-242.
3. Cleary JD, Alexander B. Blind versus nonblind review: survey of selected medical journals. Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1988;22:601-602.
4. Rogers LF. Manuscripts: to blind, or not to blind, that is the question [editorial]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:1373.
5. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Retcher RH, Retcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1990;263:1371-1376.