Attitudes toward blinding of peer review and perceptions of efficacy within a small biomedical specialty

International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics

Volumn 89, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 940-946

  Jagsi, Reshma ^a   Bennett, Katherine Egan ^b   Griffith, Kent A ^c   Decastro, Rochelle ^a   Grace, Calley ^b   Holliday, Emma ^d   Zietman, Anthony L ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO)   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^e MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ONCOLOGY;

HIGH FREQUENCY HF; INTERNATIONAL JOURNALS; METHODS AND MATERIALS; PEER REVIEW; POTENTIAL IMPACTS; RADIATION ONCOLOGY; RESEARCH PRESENTATIONS; REVIEW CONTENTS;

SURVEYS;

ADULT; AGED; ATTITUDE; AUTHOR; CONFERENCE PAPER; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GENDER; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PEER REVIEW; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE;

ATTITUDE; AUTHORSHIP; CONSENSUS; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; EDITORIAL POLICIES; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; QUESTIONNAIRES; RADIATION ONCOLOGY;

EID: 84904095255     PISSN: 03603016     EISSN: 1879355X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.04.021     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. M. Fisher, S.B. Friedman, and B. Strauss The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review JAMA 272 1994 143 146
2. J.S. Ross, C.P. Gross, and M.M. Desai et al. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance JAMA 295 2006 1675 1680
3. A.E. Budden, T. Tregenza, and L.W. Aarssen et al. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors Trends Ecol Evol 23 2008 4 6
4. S. Hill, and F. Provost The myth of the double-blind review? Author identification using only citations ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 5 2003 179 184
5. A. Yankauer How blind is blind review [Commentary] Am J Public Health 81 1991 843 845
6. R.A. McNutt, A.T. Evans, and R.H. Fletcher et al. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial JAMA 263 1990 1371 1376
7. M.K. Cho, A.C. Justice, and M.A. Winker et al. Masking author identity in peer review: What factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators JAMA 280 1998 243 245
8. A.C. Justice, M.K. Cho, and M.A. Winker et al. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators JAMA 280 1998 240 242
9. D.S. Katz, A.V. Proto, and W.W. Olmsted Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: Our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies AJR Am J Roentgenol 179 2002 1415 1417
10. RT Answers - Answers to Your Radiation Therapy Questions. Statistics: About radiation therapy. Available at: http://www.rtanswers.org/statistics/ aboutradiationtherapy/. Accessed January 19, 2014.
11. J.G. Baggs, M.E. Broome, and M.C. Dougherty et al. Blinding in peer review: The preferences of reviewers for nursing journals J Adv Nurs 64 2008 131 138
12. R. Jagsi, E.A. Guancial, and C.C. Worobey et al. The "gender gap" in authorship of academic medical literature - a 35-year perspective N Engl J Med 355 2006 281 287
13. E. Holliday, R. Jagsi, and L.D. Wilson et al. Gender differences in publication productivity, academic position, career duration, and funding among U.S. academic radiation oncology faculty Acad Med 89 2014 767 773
14. G. Regehr, and G. Bordage To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer Med Educ 40 2006 832 839
15. M.H. Kearney, and M.C. Freda Nurse editors' views on the peer review process Res Nurs Health 28 2005 444 452
16. R. Smith Opening up BMJ peer review: A beginning that should lead to complete transparency [Editorial] Br Med J 318 1999 4 5
17. M.C. Dougherty Open peer review: A first step [Editorial] Nurs Res 53 2004 213