HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Yankauer, A Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Yankauer, A

How blind is blind review?

A Yankauer

Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester 01655.

BACKGROUND: No representative surveys of scientific opinion about blind review have been published, and there is very little information on the success of the blinding process. The American Journal of Public Health has practiced blind review since 1977. METHODS: In 1989 to 1990 312 of its reviewers were asked to identify author and institution in the manuscript they reviewed, to provide clues to such identification, to express their opinion concerning blind review, and to offer reasons for their opinion. RESULTS: Reviewers claimed to be able to identify author and/or institution in 47% of the 614 chances offered; identification was incorrect 16% of the time, overall identification correct 39% of the time. Self-referencing was the clue to identification in 62%, personal knowledge in 38% of the cases. If only personal knowledge cases are considered, blinding was successful 83% of the time. Blinding was favored by 75% of the reviewers with most asserting it eliminated bias. Reasons given for opposing blind review included the following: blinding not possible, identification will not influence judgment, and its obverse, identification assists judgment. CONCLUSIONS: For the American Journal of Public Health blinding is usually, but not always, successful; and the majority of its reviewers favor current policy. Until more definitive data are in, reviewer preference, which differs from journal to journal, seems the most legitimate guide to journal policy on blind review.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. P. Vecchio Journal Reviewer Ratings: Issues of Particularistic Bias, Agreement, and Predictive Validity Within the Manuscript Review Process Bulletin of Science Technology Society, June 1, 2006; 26(3): 228 - 242. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. S. Katz, A. V. Proto, and W. W. Olmsted Incidence and Nature of Unblinding by Authors: Our Experience at Two Radiology Journals with Double-Blinded Peer Review Policies Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2002; 179(6): 1415 - 1417. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. C. Justice, M. K. Cho, M. A. Winker, J. A. Berlin, D. Rennie, and and the PEER Investigators Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?: A Randomized Controlled Trial JAMA, July 15, 1998; 280(3): 240 - 242. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. K. Cho, A. C. Justice, M. A. Winker, J. A. Berlin, J. F. Waeckerle, M. L. Callaham, D. Rennie, and and the PEER Investigators Masking Author Identity in Peer Review: What Factors Influence Masking Success? JAMA, July 15, 1998; 280(3): 243 - 245. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M. CAMPANARIO Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today--Part 2 Science Communication, June 1, 1998; 19(4): 277 - 306. [Abstract]