Open, single-blind, double-blind: Which peer review process do you prefer?

BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Moylan, Elizabeth C ^a   Harold, Simon ^b   O'Neill, Ciaran ^a   Kowalczuk, Maria K ^a  

^a BIOMED CENTRAL   (United Kingdom)

^b Nature   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMED CENTRAL; CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; EDITOR; HUMAN; IDENTITY; PEER REVIEW; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; TOXICOLOGY;

DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD;

EID: 84923445913     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20506511     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/2050-6511-15-55     Document Type: Editorial

References (28)

1. BioMed Central: BMC series journals. In http://www.biomedcentral.com/authors/bmcseries.
2. Godlee F: Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA 2002, 287(21):2762-2765.
3. Moylan EC, Morrey C, Appleford-Cook JM: Only connect: the merger of BMC Pharmacology and BMC Clinical Pharmacology. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol 2012, 13:1.
4. DeAngelis CD: Conflict of interest and the public trust. JAMA 2000, 284:2237-2238.
5. Heard K, Green JL, Anderson V, Bucher-Bartelson B, Dart RC: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial to determine the course of aminotransferase elevation during prolonged acetaminophen administration. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol 2014, 15:39.
6. Pre-publication history; http://www.biomedcentral.com/2050-6511/15/39/prepub.
7. Edmunds EC: Peering into peer-review at GigaScience. Giga Sci 2013, 2:1.
8. Kriegeskorte N: Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science. Front Comput Neurosci 2012, 6:79.
9. Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B: Bias in peer review. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2013, 64:2.
10. Amsen E: What is open peer review? In http://blog.f1000research.com/2014/05/21/what-is-open-peer-review/.
11. Harriman S: A case for open peer review for clinical trials. In http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2014/06/04/a-case-for-open-peer-review-forclinical-trials/.
12. 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, 318:23-27.
13. Khan K: Is open peer review the fairest system? No BMJ 2010, 341:c6425.
14. McGlynn T: Why I prefer anonymous reviews. http://smallpondscience.com/2014/03/26/why-i-prefer-anonymous-peer-reviews/.
15. Koonin EV, Landweber LF, Lipman DJ: Biology Direct: celebrating 7 years of open, published peer review. Biol Direct 2013, 8:11.
16. Ghosh SS, Kliein A, Avants B, Millman KJ: Learning from open source software projects to improve scientific review. Front Comput Neurosci 2012, 6:18.
17. Mulligan A, Hall L, Raphael E: Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. J Assoc Info Sci Technol 2012, 64:132-161.
18. Kowalczuk MK, Dudbridge F, Nanda S, Harriman SL, Moylan EC: A comparison of the quality of reviewer reports from author-suggestedreviewers and editor-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or closed peer review models. F1000Posters 2013, 4:1252. poster.
19. Ho RC, Mak KK, Tao R, Lu Y, Day JR, Pan F: Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013, 13:74.
20. Ware M, Monkman M: Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community - an international study. In Publishing Research Consortium; 2008.
21. Nature Editorial: Working double-blind. Nature 2008, 451:605-606.
22. Smith R: Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ 1999, 318(7175):4-5.
23. van Rooyen S, Delamothe T, Evans SJ: Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2010, 341:c5729.
24. Russell F: Should there be training for peer reviewers? In http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2014/05/16/should-there-be-training-for-peerreviewers/.
25. Patel J: Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials. BMC Med 2014, 12:128.
26. Hopewell S, Collins GS, Boutron I, Yu LM, Cook J, Shanyinde M, Wharton R, Shamseer L, Altman DG: Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study. BMJ 2014, 349:g4145.
27. Beall J: Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature 2012, 489:179.
28. Bohannon J: Who's Afraid of Peer Review? Science 2013, 342:60-65.