Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: Randomised controlled trial

BMJ (Online)

Volumn 341, Issue 7782, 2010, Pages 1088-

  Van Rooyen, Susan ^a   Delamothe, Tony ^a   Evans, Stephen J W ^b  

^a BRITISH MEDICAL ASSOCIATION   (United Kingdom)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTHOR; CONTROLLED STUDY; EDITOR; INTERNET; MEDICAL LITERATURE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZATION; STUDY DESIGN; UNITED KINGDOM;

AUTHORSHIP; DISCLOSURE; INTERNET; MANUSCRIPTS, MEDICAL; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 78449286446     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c5729     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Lock S. A difficult balance: editorial peer review inmedicine. Nuffield Provincials Hospital Trust, 1985.
2. Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer review in health sciences (second edition). BMJ Books, 2003.
3. Fabiato A. Anonymity of reviewers. Cardiovasc Res 1994;28:1134-9.
4. Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW, Fox R, Lock S, Horrobin DF, Pepper K, et al. Anonymity of reviewers: commentaries. Cardiovasc Res 1994;28:1140-5.
5. Rennie D. Freedom and responsibility inmedical publication. Setting the balance right. JAMA 1998;280:300-2.
6. Hearse DJ. Anonymity of reviewers - editorial comment. Cardiovasc Res 1994;28:1133.
7. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. JAMA 1990;263:1371-6.
8. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomised trial. JAMA 1998;280:234-7. (Pubitemid 28493892)
9. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D, the PEER investigators. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomised controlled trial. JAMA 1998;280:240-2.
10. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 1999;318:23-7.
11. Habibzadeh F, Siebers R. Peer review in small vs nonsmall biomedical journals [p 48-9]. Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication; 2009 September 10-12; Vancouver, Canada. http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/posters-0911.pdf.
12. Regehr G, Bordage G. To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer. Med Educ 2006;40:832-9.
13. PLoS medicine editors. Peer review in PLoS Medicine. PLoS Med 2007;4:e58.
14. van Rooyen S, Black N, Godlee F. Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:625-9. (Pubitemid 29281657)
15. Garfunkel JM, Lawson EE, Hamrick HJ, Ulshen MH. Effect of acceptance or rejection on the author's evaluation of peer review of medical manuscripts. JAMA 1990;263:1376-8.
16. Walsh W, Rooney M, Appleby L, Wilkinson G. Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2000;176:47-51.
17. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S, Black N. The effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. J Gen Intern Med 1999;14:622-4.