Document Detail

The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  8015127     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
OBJECTIVE: To study whether reviewers aware of author identity are biased in favor of authors with more previous publications.
DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial.
SETTING: Editorial office of the Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics.
PARTICIPANTS: Two "blinded" and two "nonblinded" reviewers assigned to 57 consecutive manuscripts submitted between September 1991 and March 1992.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Spearman rank correlation coefficients were used to compare the sum of rating scores of 1 to 5 (1, accept; 5, reject) given by the two blinded reviewers, the two nonblinded reviewers, and the editors to the number of articles published previously by the first and senior authors (as determined from requested curricula vitae). Blinded reviewers were sent a questionnaire asking whether they could determine the identity of the authors, how they knew, and whether they thought binding changed the quality or difficulty of their review.
RESULTS: The Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test disclosed no differences between blinded and nonblinded scores. The number of previous articles by the senior author was significantly correlated (P < .01) with blinded scores (r = -.45) and editors' decisions (r = -.45), but not with nonblinded scores; the number of articles by the first author was correlated (P < .05) with editors' decisions (r = -.35) but not with blinded or nonblinded scores. Fifty (46%) of 108 blinded reviewers correctly guessed the identity of the authors, mostly from self-references and knowledge of the work; 86% believed blinding did not change the quality of their review, and 73% believed it did not change the difficulty of performing a review.
CONCLUSIONS: Blinded reviewers and editors in this study, but not nonblinded reviewers, gave better scores to authors with more previous articles. These results suggest that blinded reviewers may provide more unbiased reviews and that nonblinded reviewers may be affected by various types of bias.
M Fisher; S B Friedman; B Strauss
Related Documents :
20523217 - Evidence-based practice: how to perform and use systematic reviews for clinical decisio...
10862077 - Evidence-based medicine and health economics: a case study of end stage renal disease.
19034207 - Extracting key messages from systematic reviews.
1410947 - General practitioners' attitudes to oestrogen prescription in the menopause: a national...
12790227 - Synovial chondromatosis of the hip: management with arthroscope-assisted synovectomy an...
22728487 - Membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis in castleman's disease: a systematic review of...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Clinical Trial; Journal Article; Randomized Controlled Trial    
Journal Detail:
Title:  JAMA     Volume:  272     ISSN:  0098-7484     ISO Abbreviation:  JAMA     Publication Date:  1994 Jul 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  1994-07-28     Completed Date:  1994-07-28     Revised Date:  2014-09-17    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  7501160     Medline TA:  JAMA     Country:  UNITED STATES    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  143-6     Citation Subset:  AIM; IM    
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Manuscripts as Topic
Peer Review, Research*
Periodicals as Topic
Publication Bias*
Erratum In:
JAMA 1994 Oct 19;272(15):1170

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

Previous Document:  Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process?
Next Document:  A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review.