Document Detail


The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  8015127     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
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.
Authors:
M Fisher; S B Friedman; B Strauss
Related Documents :
11078537 - Electrosurgical methods for arthroscopic meniscectomy: a review of the literature.
18400967 - Need for quality improvement in renal systematic reviews.
18340277 - United states pharmacopeia review of the black cohosh case reports of hepatotoxicity.
11700427 - Thrombolysis during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in fulminant pulmonary embolism: a re...
8536527 - Wandering spleen with torsion in a geriatric patient. report of an unusual case with a ...
24163547 - Sialoblastoma: a literature review from 1966-2011.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Clinical Trial; Journal Article; Randomized Controlled Trial    
Journal Detail:
Title:  JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association     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:  2010-12-01    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  7501160     Medline TA:  JAMA     Country:  UNITED STATES    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  143-6     Citation Subset:  AIM; IM    
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, North Shore University Hospital, Cornell University Medical College, Manhasset, NY 11030.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Authorship*
Humans
Manuscripts as Topic
Peer Review, Research*
Periodicals as Topic
Publication Bias*
Comments/Corrections
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.