Abstract
The objectives of this study were to see whether, in the opinion of authors, blinding or unmasking or a combination of the two affects the quality of reviews and to compare authors’ and editors’ assessments. In a trial conducted in the British Medical Journal, 527 consecutive manuscripts were randomized into one of three groups, and each was sent to two reviewers, who were randomized to receive a blinded or an unblinded copy of the manuscript. Review quality was assessed by two editors and the corresponding author. There was no significant difference in assessment between groups or between editors and authors. Reviews recommending publication were scored more highly than those recommending rejection.
References
Lock S. A difficult balance: editorial peer review in medicine. London, UK: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust; 1985.
Kassirer JP, Campion EW. Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA. 1994;272:96–7.
Fisher M, Friedman SB, Strauss B. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA. 1994;272:143–6.
Strasburger VC. Righting medical writing. JAMA. 1985;254:1789–90.
Yankauer A. Peer review again. Am J Public Health. 1982;72:239–40.
Shapiro S. The decision to publish: ethical dilemmas. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38:365–72.
Ingelfinger FJ. Peer review in biomedical publication. Am J Med. 1974;56:686–92.
Robin ED, Burke CM. Peer review in medical journals. Chest. 1987;91:252–5.
Feinstein AR. Some ethical issues among editors, reviewers and readers. J Chronic Dis. 1986;39:491–3.
McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. JAMA. 1990;263:1371–6.
van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black NA. The effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1998;280:234–7.
Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker M, et al. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial JAMA. 1998;280:240–2.
Laband DN, Piette MJ. A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. JAMA. 1994;272:147–9.
van Rooyen S, Black N, Godlee F. Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:625–9.
Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and what makes a good review in a general medical journal? JAMA. 1998;280:231–3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Funding was received from the NHSE North Thames Research & Development Responsive Funding Group, London, U.K.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S. et al. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. J GEN INTERN MED 14, 622–624 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.09058.x
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.09058.x