Double anonymity in peer review within the chemistry periodicals community

Learned Publishing

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 131-137

  Brown, Richard J C ^a  

^a NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34247491057     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1087/174148507X185108     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Weller, A.C. Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Silver Spring, MD, American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2001.
2. Rowland, F. 2002. The peer-review process. Learned Publishing, 15: 247-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/095315102760319206
3. Spier, R. 2002. The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20: 357-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6
4. van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Smith, R., Evans, S., and Black, N. 1998. The effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA, 280: 234-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.234
5. van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Smith, R., and Black, N. 1999. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 14: 622-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497. 1999.09058.x
6. van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N., and Smith, R. 1999. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ, 318: 23-7.
7. Stehbens, W.E. 1999. Basic philosophy and concepts underlying scientific peer review. Medical Hypotheses, 52: 31-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1054/ mehy.1997.0628
8. Surwillo, W.W. 1986. Anonymous reviewing and the peer review process. American Psychologist, 41: 218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.2.218.a
9. Tregenza, T. 2002. Gender bias in the refereeing process. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 17: 349-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(02) 02545-4
10. Broad W. and Wade N. Betrayers of the Truth. New York, Simon & Schuster, 1983,
11. Brown, R.J.C. 2005. The use of double anonymity in peer review: a decision whose time has come? Quality Assurance, 11: 103-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10529410500481983
12. Brown, R.J.C. 2006. To know or not to know? Chemistry and Industry, 5: 17.
13. Schroter, S., Tite, L., Hutchings, A., and Black, N. 2006. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA, 295: 314-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.3.314
14. McNutt, R.A., Evans, A.T., Fletcher R.H., and Fletcher, S.W. 1990. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. JAMA, 263: 1371-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.263.10.1371
15. Evans, A.T., McNutt, R.A., Fletcher, R.H., and Fletcher, S.W. 1993. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 8: 422-8.
16. Laband, D.N. and Piette, M.J. 1994. A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. JAMA, 272, 147-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama. 272.2.147
17. Murray, P. 1999. Fundamental issues in questionnaire design. Accident and Emergency Nursing, 7: 148-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0965-2302(99) 80074-5
18. Barnes, S. Questionnaire design and construction, 2001. http://www.cros.ac.uk/question_design.pdf
19. www.xlstat.com
20. Miller, J.N. and Miller J.C. Statistics and Chemometrics for Analytical Chemistry, 5th edn. London, Pearson, 2005.
21. Brown, R.J.C. 2006. The reviewer's role. Chemistry and Industry, 4: 17.
22. Speth, R. 2006. Bad science. Fraud and peer review. Chemistry and Industry, 2: 15.