The Annals
home help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Drug Intelligence & Clinical Pharmacy: Vol. 22, No. 7, pp. 601-602.
© 1988 Harvey Whitney Books Company.
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Articles Ahead of Print
Right arrow [Order Reprint]
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cleary, J.
Right arrow Articles by Alexander, B
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cleary, J.
Right arrow Articles by Alexander, B

Research Articles

Blind versus nonblind review: survey of selected medical journals

JD Cleary and B Alexander

The publication of scientific research in medical journals is a lengthy process. Submitted manuscripts are often reviewed by two or more outside reviewers who evaluate each manuscript for publication acceptability. The process of manuscript evaluation by an editor-selected reviewer ("peers" or "referees") is termed "peer review." One issue involving the peer-review process is the use of blind versus nonblind referees. The purpose of this survey was to determine the percentage of a select group of medicine-related journals that blind their reviewers. We surveyed 114 English language journals. Journal editors were sent a survey that asked two questions: (1) are the referees who review your manuscripts blinded to the identity of the authors? and (2) is the editor blinded to the identity of the authors until after the review of the manuscripts is complete? Ninety-six of 114 (84.2 percent) surveys were returned. Ten journals published invited manuscripts only and were excluded from the survey. Only 18.6 percent (16 of 86) of the journals currently blind referees. None of the journals' editors were blind to the identity of the manuscripts' authors.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Mayo Clin. Proc.Home page
M. E. Falagas, G. M. Zouglakis, and P. K. Kavvadia
How Masked Is the 'Masked Peer Review' of Abstracts Submitted to International Medical Conferences?
Mayo Clin. Proc., May 1, 2006; 81(5): 705 - 705.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
D. S. Liebeskind, D. S. Katz, A. V. Proto, and W. W. Olmsted
The Fallacy of Double-Blinded Peer Review
Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2003; 181 (5): 1422 - 1423.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
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]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
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]


homecopy help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
Copyright © 1988 by Harvey Whitney Books Company.