Blinding in peer review: The preferences of reviewers for nursing journals

Journal of Advanced Nursing

Volumn 64, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 131-138

  Baggs, Judith Gedney ^a   Broome, Marion E ^b   Dougherty, Molly C ^c   Freda, Margaret C ^d   Kearney, Margaret H ^e  

^a OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^d ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Blinding; Double blind method; Journals; Nursing; Peer review; Publication bias; Survey

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; HUMAN; NURSING; PEER REVIEW; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; STANDARD;

DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; EDITORIAL POLICIES; HUMANS; NURSING; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE;

EID: 54749121390     PISSN: 03092402     EISSN: 13652648     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04816.x     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Baggs J.G. (1999) The value of the blind review process: Is blindness best? [Editorial]. Research in Nursing & Health 22, 93 94.
2. Budden A.E., Tregenza T., Aarssen L.W., Koricheva J., Leimu R. Lortie C.J. (2008) Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23, 4 6.
3. Callaham M.L., Knopp R.K. Gallagher E.J. (2002) Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews. Journal of the American Medical Association 287, 2781 2783.
4. Cho M.K., Justice A.C., Winker M.A., Berlin J.A., Waeckerle J.F., Callaham M.L. Rennie D. (1998) Masking author identity in peer review: What factors influence masking success? Journal of the American Medical Association 280, 243 245.
5. Davidoff F. (1998) Masking, blinding, and peer review: the blind leading the blinded [Editorial]. Annals of Internal Medicine 128, 66 68.
6. Dougherty M.C. (2004) Open peer review: a first step [Editorial]. Nursing Research 53, 213.
7. Fisher M., Friedman S.B. Strauss B. (1994) The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 272, 143 146.
8. Godlee F. (2002) Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit [Commentary]. Journal of the American Medical Association 287, 2762 2765.
9. Godlee F., Gale C.R. Martyn C.N. (1998) Effect of the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports. Journal of the American Medical Association 280, 237 240.
10. Jefferson T., Alderson P., Wagner E. Davidoff F. (2002a). Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association 287, 2784 2786. Tables with online version. Retrieved from http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/data/287/21/2784/DC1/1, http://jama.ama-assn.org/ cgi/data/287/21/2784/DC1/2 on 31 December 2007.
11. Jefferson T., Wagner E. Davidoff F. (2002b) Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 287, 2786.
12. Jefferson T., Rudin M., Brodney S. Davidoff R. (n.d Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (Cochrane Methodology Review). The Cochrane database of methodology reviews 0000, Issue, Art. No.: MR000016. pub 2. Retrieved from http://www.update-software.com/ Abstracts/am000016.htm on 31 December 2007.
13. Justice A.C., Cho M.K., Winker M.A., Berlin J.A., Rennie D. the PEER Investigators. (1998) Does masking author identity improve peer review quality: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 280, 240 242.
14. Katz D.S., Proto A.V. Olmsted W.W. (2002) Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies. American Journal of Radiology 179, 1415 1417.
15. Kearney M.H. Freda M.C. (2005) Nurse editors' views on the peer review process. Research in Nursing & Health 28, 444 452.
16. Kearney M.H., Baggs J.G., Broome M., Dougherty M. Freda M. (2008) Experience, time investment, and motivators of nursing journal peer reviewers. Journal of Nursing Scholarship (in press).
17. Laband D.N. Piette M.J. (1994) A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 272, 147 149.
18. Malone R.E. (1999) Should peer review be an open process? [The Research Column]. Journal of Emergency Nursing 25, 150 152.
19. Mason D.J. (2003) Editorial freedom and integrity: you should be able to trust what you read. American Journal of Nursing 103 (4 11.
20. McNutt R.A. (1990) The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. a randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 263, 1371 1376.
21. Regehr G. Bordage G. (2006) To blind or not to blind? what authors and reviewers prefer. Medical Education 40, 832 839.
22. Rennie D. (1998) Peer review in Prague [Editorial]. Journal of the American Medical Association 280, 214 215.
23. van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Evans S., Smith R. Black N. (1998) Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 280, 234 237.
24. van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Evans S., Black N. Smith R. (1999a) Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomized trial. British Medical Journal 318, 23 27.
25. van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Evans S., Smith R. Black N. (1999b) Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review [Brief Report]. Journal of General Internal Medicine 14, 622 624.
26. Ross J.S., Gross C.P., Desai M.M., Hong Y., Grant A.O., Daniels S.R., Hachinski V.C., Gibbons R.J., Gardner T.J. Krumholz H.M. (2006) Effect of blinded peer review of abstract acceptance. Journal of the American Medical Association 295, 1675 1680.
27. Smith R. (1999) Opening up BMJ peer review: a beginning that should lead to complete transparency [Editorial]. British Medical Journal 318, 4 5.
28. Smith J.A., Nixon R. Jr., Bueschen A.J., Venable D.D. Henry H.H. II. (2002) The impact of blinded versus unblinded abstract review on scientific program content. The Journal of Urology 168, 2123 2125.
29. Steers W.D. (2006) Blind faith [Editorial]. The Journal of Urology 176, 1905 1906.
30. Tilden V. (2002) Peer review: evidence-based or sacred cow? Nursing Research 51, 275.
31. Walsh E., Rooney M., Appleby L. Wilkinson G. (2000) Open peer review: a randomized controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry 176, 47 51.
32. Yankauer A. (1991) How blind is blind review [Commentary]. American Journal of Public Health 81, 843 845.