Document Detail


Attitudes toward blinding of peer review and perceptions of efficacy within a small biomedical specialty.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  25035195     Owner:  NLM     Status:  In-Data-Review    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
PURPOSE: Peer reviewers' knowledge of author identity may influence review content, quality, and recommendations. Therefore, the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics ("Red Journal") implemented double-blinded peer review in 2011. Given the relatively small size of the specialty and the high frequency of preliminary abstract presentations, we sought to evaluate attitudes, the efficacy of blinding, and the potential impact on the disposition of submissions.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: In May through August 2012, all Red Journal reviewers and 1 author per manuscript completed questionnaires regarding demographics, attitudes, and perceptions of success of blinding. We also evaluated correlates of the outcomes of peer review.
RESULTS: Questionnaires were received from 408 authors and 519 reviewers (100%). The majority of respondents favored double blinding; 6% of authors and 13% of reviewers disagreed that double blinding should continue in the Red Journal. In all, 50% of the reviewers did not suspect the identity of the author of the paper that they reviewed; 19% of reviewers believed that they could identify the author(s), and 31% suspected that they could. Similarly, 23% believed that they knew the institution(s) from which the paper originated, and 34% suspected that they did. Among those who at least suspected author identity, 42% indicated that prior presentations served as a clue, and 57% indicated that literature referenced did so. Of those who at least suspected origin and provided details (n=133), 13% were entirely incorrect. Rejection was more common in 2012 than 2011, and submissions from last authors with higher H-indices (>21) were more likely to survive initial review, without evidence of interactions between submission year and author gender or H-index.
CONCLUSIONS: In a relatively small specialty in which preliminary research presentations are common and occur in a limited number of venues, reviewers are often familiar with research findings and suspect author identity even when manuscript review is blinded. Nevertheless, blinding appears to be effective in many cases, and support for continuing blinding was strong.
Authors:
Reshma Jagsi; Katherine Egan Bennett; Kent A Griffith; Rochelle DeCastro; Calley Grace; Emma Holliday; Anthony L Zietman
Related Documents :
2014775 - Cladosporium trichoides cerebral phaeohyphomycosis in a liver transplant recipient. rep...
9087345 - Isolation and identification of ornithobacterium rhinotracheale from commercial broiler...
18940015 - Gorham's disease involving the left parietal bone: a case report.
22986855 - Transverse nasal crease and transverse nasal milia: clinical variants of the same entity.
21440875 - Electrodermal activity at acupoints: literature review and recommendations for reportin...
11509805 - Iga nephropathy and pulmonary hemorrhage in an adult.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article     Date:  2014-07-08
Journal Detail:
Title:  International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics     Volume:  89     ISSN:  1879-355X     ISO Abbreviation:  Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys.     Publication Date:  2014 Aug 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2014-07-18     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  7603616     Medline TA:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  940-6     Citation Subset:  IM    
Copyright Information:
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Perceived quality of interprofessional interactions between physicians and nurses in oncology outpat...
Next Document:  Randomized Trial of Hyperfractionation Versus Conventional Fractionation in T2 Squamous Cell Carcino...