Blind Faith

Journal of Urology

Volumn 176, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 1905-1906

  Steers, William D ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; EDITORIAL; HOSPITAL ADMISSION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; UNITED STATES; UROLOGY;

PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLISHING; UROLOGY;

EID: 33750293481     PISSN: 00225347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.046     Document Type: Editorial

References (16)

1. Justice A.C., Cho M.K., Winker M.A., Berlin J.A., Rennie D., and PEER Investigators. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality?. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 280 (1998) 240
2. Van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Evans S., Smith R., and Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA 280 (1998) 234
3. Godlee F., Gale C.R., and Martyn C.N. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 280 (1998) 237
4. Laband D.N., and Piette M.J. A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. JAMA 272 (1994) 147
5. McNutt R.A., Evans A.T., Fletcher R.H., and Fletcher S.W. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA 263 (1990) 1371
6. Cho M.K., Justice A.C., Winker M.A., Berlin J.A., Waeckerle J.F., Callaham M.L., et al. Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success?. JAMA 280 (1998) 243
7. Katz D.S., Proto A.V., and Olmsted W.W. Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double blinded peer review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179 (2002) 1415
8. Link A.M. US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA 280 (1998) 246
9. Fisher M., Friedman S.B., and Straus B. The effect of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA 272 (1994) 143
10. Gilbert J.R., Williams E.S., and Lundberg G.D. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process?. JAMA 272 (1994) 139
11. Garfunkel J.M., Ulshen M.H., Hamrick H.J., and Lawson E.E. Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers' recommendations and editorial decisions. JAMA 272 (1994) 137
12. Smith Jr. J., Nixon R., Bueschen A.J., Venable D.D., and Henry H.H. The impact of blinded versus unblinded abstract review on scientific program content. J Urol 168 (2002) 2123
13. Ross J.S., Gross C.P., Desai M.M., Hong Y., Grant A.O., Daniels S.R., et al. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA 295 (2006) 1675
14. Walsh E., Rooney M., Appleby L., and Wilkinson G. Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 176 (2000) 47
15. Van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Evans S., Black N., and Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of review and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 318 (1999) 23
16. Schroter S., Tite L., Hutchings A., and Black N. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA 295 (2006) 314