Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger"

Danish Medical Journal

Volumn 59, Issue 8, 2012, Pages

  Vinther, Siri ^a   Nielsen, Ole Haagen ^a,b   Rosenberg, Jacob ^a,b   Keiding, Niels ^c   Schroeder, Torben V ^b,d  

^a GENTOFTE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^b Danish Medical Association (Ugeskrift for Laeger)   (Denmark)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^d Rigshospitalet   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; QUALITY CONTROL; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; METHODOLOGY; PUBLICATION; RANDOMIZATION; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; STANDARD; WRITING;

ATTITUDE; AUTHORSHIP; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PREJUDICE; QUESTIONNAIRES; RANDOM ALLOCATION; SERIAL PUBLICATIONS;

EID: 84873105920     PISSN: None     EISSN: 22451919     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (12)

1. Triggle CR, Triggle DJ. What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"? Vasc Health Risk Manag 2007;3:39-53.
2. Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports-a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998;280:237-40.
3. Mcnutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH et al. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer-review-a randomized trial. JAMA 1990;263:1371-6.
4. Regehr G, Bordage G. To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer. Med Educ 2006;40:832-9.
5. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S et al. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 1999;318:23-7.
6. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S et al. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. J Gen Intern Med 1999;14:622-4.
7. 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.
8. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E et al. Effects of editorial peer review-a systematic review. JAMA 2002;287:2784-6.
9. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA et al. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998;280:240-2.
10. Walsh E, Rooney M, Appleby L et al. Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2000;176:47-51.
11. Smith R. Opening up BMJ peer review-a beginning that should lead to complete transparency. BMJ 1999;318:4-5.
12. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 2006;99:178-82.