To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer

Medical Education

Volumn 40, Issue 9, 2006, Pages 832-839

  Regehr, Glenn ^a,b   Bordage, Georges ^c  

^a Wilson Centre   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS   (United States)

Author keywords

*Editorial policies; *Education, medical; *Periodicals; Attitude; Authorship; Double blind method; Great Britain; Peer review, research

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE; AUTHOR; CONFIDENTIALITY; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; POLICY; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW;

ATTITUDE; AUTHORSHIP; EDITORIAL POLICIES; EDUCATION, MEDICAL; GREAT BRITAIN; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS;

EID: 33747698399     PISSN: 03080110     EISSN: 13652923     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02539.x     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Laband DN, Piette MJ. A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. JAMA 1994;272:147-9.
2. Shugan SM. Editorial. Changes in the review process. Marketing Sci 2002;21:iii-v.
3. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: randomised trial. JAMA 1998;280:234-7.
4. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. J Gen Intern Med 1999;14:622-4.
5. Katz DS, Proto AV, Olmsted WW. Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors. Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:1415-7.
6. Cleary JD, Alexander B. Blind versus non-blind review: survey of selected medical journals. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1988;22:601-2.
7. Moossy J, Moossy YR. Anonymous authors, anonymous referees: an editorial exploration. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 1985;44:225-8.
8. Shea JA, Caelleigh AS, Pangaro L, Steinecke A. Review process. In: Review Criteria for Research Manuscripts. Acad Med 2001;76:911-4.
9. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. JAMA 1990;263:1371-6.
10. Fisher M, Friedman SB, Strauss B. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA 1994;272:143-6.
11. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA et al. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomised control trial. JAMA 1998;280:240-2.
12. Lock S. A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine. Philadelphia: ISI Press 1985;122-3.
13. Cho MK, Justice AC, Winker MA et al. Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? JAMA 1998;280:243-5.
14. Rosenblatt A, Kirk SA. Recognition of authors in blind review of manuscripts. J Soc Serv Res 1980;3:383-94.
15. Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomised controlled trial. JAMA 1998;280:237-40.
16. Schroeder TV, Nielson OH. Blinded versus unblinded peer review in a non-English-language journal: a randomised controlled trial. Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Chicago, September 2005. http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/abstracts.html. [Accessed 18 February 2006.]
17. Posey ML. Behaviours of authors and peer reviewers following change from closed to open reviews. Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Chicago, September 2005. http://www.amaassn.org/public/ peer/abstracts.html. [Accessed 18 February 2006.]
18. Tao S, Yamey G, Barbour V, Cohen B. What proportion of reviewers request anonymous peer review and what are their reasons? Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Chicago, September 2005. http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/abstracts.html. [Accessed 18 February 2006.]
19. Ross JS, Gros CP, Hong Y, Grant AO, Daniels SR, Hachinski VC, Gibbons RJ, Gardner TJ, Krumholz HM. Assessment of blind peer review on abstract acceptance for scientific meetings. Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Chicago, September 2005. http://www.ama-assn.org/public/ peer/abstracts.html. [Accessed 18 February 2006.]
20. Snell L, Spencer J. Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal. Med Educ 2005;39:90-7.