Masked Reviews Are Not Fairer Reviews

Perspectives on Psychological Science

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 62-64

  Newcombe, Nora S ^a   Bouton, Mark E ^b  

^a TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960895650     PISSN: 17456916     EISSN: 17456924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01102.x     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Blank R.M.The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: Experimental evidence from The American Economic Review.American Economic Review. 1991;81:1041-1067.
2. Bornmann L.,Mutz R.,Daniel H.D.Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis.Journal of Infometrics. 2007;1:226-238.
3. Ceci S.J.,Peters D.How blind is blind review?.American Psychologist. 1984;39:1491-1494.
4. Cho M.K.,Justice A.C.,Winker M.A.,Berlin J.A.,Waeckerle J.F.,Callaham M.L.,Rennie D.Masking author identity in peer review: What factors influence masking success?.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998;280:243-245.
5. Cleary J.D.,Alexander B.Blind versus nonblind review: Survey of selected medical journals.Drug Intelligence and Clinical Pharmacy. 1988;22:601-602.
6. Epstein S.What can be done to improve the journal review process.American Psychologist. 1995;50:883-885.
7. Fisher M.,Friedman S.B.,Strauss B.The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1994;272:143-146.
8. Franzini L.R.Editors are not blind.American Psychologist. 1987;42:104.
9. Garfunkel J.M.,Ulshen M.H.,Hamrick H.J.,Lawson E.E.Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers' recommendations and editorial decisions.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1994;272:137-138.
10. Gidez L.I.The peer review process: Strengths and weaknesses.Serials Librarian. 1991;19:75-85.
11. Gilbert J.R.,Williams E.S.,Lundberg G.D.Is there gender bias in JAMA's review process?.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1994;272:139-142.
12. Godlee F.,Gale C.R.,Martyn C.N.Effect of the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998;280:237-240.
13. Justice A.C.,Cho M.K.,Winkler M.A.,Berlin J.A.,Rennie D.Does masking author identity improve peer review quality?.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998;280:240-242.
14. Marsh H.W.,Jayasinghe U.W.,Bond N.W.Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability.American Psychologist. 2008;63:160-168.
15. McNutt M.D.,Evans R.T.,Fletcher R.H.,Fletcher S.W.The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1990;263:1371-1376.
16. Moosy J.,Moosy Y.R.Anonymous authors, anonymous referees: An editorial exploration.Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology. 1985;263:225-228.
17. Peters D.,Ceci S.J.Peer review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles submitted again.Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1982;5:187-196.
18. Petty R.E.,Fleming M.A.,Fabigrar L.R.The review process at PSPB: Correlates of interreviewer agreement and manuscript acceptance.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1999;25:188-203.
19. Surwillo W.Anonymous reviewing and the peer- review process.American Psychologist. 1986;41:218.
20. Valian V.Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1999.
21. van Rooyen S.,Godlee F.,Evans S.,Smith R.,Black N.Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998;280:234-237.
22. Wenneras C.,Wold A.Nepotism and sexism in peer review.Nature. 1997;387:341-343.
23. Yankauer A.How blind is blind review?.American Journal of Public Health. 1991;81:843-845.