Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? the Effect of Blinding on Review Quality

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Volumn 136, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 1369-1377

  Chung, Kevin C ^a   Shauver, Melissa J ^a   Malay, Sunitha ^a   Zhong, Lin ^a   Weinstein, Aaron ^a   Rohrich, Rod J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PEER REVIEW; PROCEDURES; QUESTIONNAIRE; STANDARDS;

PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84947936918     PISSN: 00321052     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001820     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Larson BP, Chung KC., A systematic review of peer review for scientific manuscripts. Hand (N Y) 2012;7:37-44
2. Elsevier What is peer review Available at: http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/peer-review. Accessed April 16, 2015;
3. Walsh E, Rooney M, Appleby L, Wilkinson G., Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2000;176:47-51
4. 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;280:237-240
5. 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
6. Rivara FP, Cummings P, Ringold S, Bergman AB, Joffe A, Christakis DA., A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors. J Pediatr 2007;151:202-205
7. Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N., Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA 2006;295:314-317
8. Wager E, Parkin EC, Tamber PS., Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Med 2006;4:13
9. Budden AE, Tregenza T, Aarssen LW, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Lortie CJ., Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol Evol 2008;23:4-6
10. Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA 2006;295:1675-1680
11. 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. JAMA 1998;280:234-237
12. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D., Does masking author identity improve peer review quality A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators. JAMA 1998;280:240-242
13. Alam M, Kim NA, Havey J, Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: A randomized multi-rater study. Br J Dermatol 2011;165:563-567
14. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW., The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial. JAMA 1990;263:1371-1376
15. Fisher M, Friedman SB, Strauss B., The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA 1994;272:143-146
16. van Rooyen S, Black N, Godlee F., Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:625-629
17. Blasgen MW, Eswaran KP., Storage and access in relational data bases. IBM Systems J 1977;16:363-377
18. Brownlee KA, Brownlee KA., Statistical Theory and Methodology in Science and Engineering 1965;New York Wiley
19. Delobel C., Normalization and hierarchical dependencies in the relational data model. ACM Trans Database Syst 1978;3:201-222
20. Siegelman SS., The genesis of modern science: Contributions of scientific societies and scientific journals. Radiology 1998;208:9-16
21. Kronick DA., Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA 1990;263:1321-1322
22. Rohrich RJ., Personal communication. 2003;
23. Working double-blind. Nature 2008;451:605-606
24. Mainguy G, Motamedi MR, Mietchen D., Peer review: The newcomers' perspective. PLoS Biol 2005;3:e326
25. Cressey D., Journals weigh up double-blind review. Nature News. Available at: http://www.nature.com/news/journals-weigh-up-double-blind-peer-review-1.1556;. Accessed March 26, 2015
26. Mulligan A, Hall L, Raphael E., Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. J Am Soc Info Sci Tech 2013;64:132-161
27. 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
28. Baggs JG, Broome ME, Dougherty MC, Freda MC, Kearney MH., Blinding in peer review: The preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. J Adv Nurs 2008;64:131-138
29. Regehr G, Bordage G., To blind or not to blind What authors and reviewers prefer. Med Educ 2006;40:832-839
30. Jagsi R, Bennett KE, Griffith KA, Attitudes toward blinding of peer review and perceptions of efficacy within a small biomedical specialty. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014;89:940-946