Masking, Blinding, and Peer Review: The Blind Leading the Blinded
Authors: Frank Davidoff
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (1998)

Editorials1 January 1998Masking, Blinding, and Peer Review: The Blind Leading the BlindedFrank Davidoff, MD, EditorFrank Davidoff, MD, EditorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-128-1-199801010-00011 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail For some 300 years, peer review, with all its strengths (there are many) and its flaws (there are also many), has been a key element in the vexing process of getting to the truth. Despite its importance, the peer review process itself has until recently not been subject to the same intense scrutiny as the content of scholarly work [1]. It is a healthy sign, therefore, that peer review is now getting the serious attention it deserves, as was abundantly apparent at the International Congress on Biomedical Peer Review and Global Communications held in Prague in September 1997.A prominent ...References1. Lock S. A Difficult Balance. Editorial Peer Review in Medicine. Philadelphia: ISI Pr; 1985. Google Scholar2. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. JAMA. 1990; 263:1371-6. Google Scholar3. Fisher M, Friedman SB, Strauss B. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA. 1994; 272:143-6. Google Scholar4. Laband DN, Piette MJ. A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. JAMA. 1994; 272:147-9. Google Scholar5. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. The effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: A randomized, controlled trial [Abstract]. Proceedings of the International Congress on Biomedical Peer Review and Global Communications. Prague, Czech Republic, 17 to 21 September 1997:17. Google Scholar6. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D, Berkwits M, et al. Masking author identity in peer review: does it improve peer-review quality? [Abstract] Proceedings of the International Congress on Biomedical Peer Review and Global Communications. Prague, Czech Republic, 17 to 21 September 1997:18. Google Scholar7. Smith R. Peer review: reform or revolution? Time to open up the black box of peer review [Editorial]. BMJ. 1997; 315:759-60. Google Scholar8. Cho A, Justice AC, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Waeckerle J, Rennie D, et al. Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? [Abstract] Proceedings of the International Congress on Biomedical Peer Review and Global Communications. Prague, Czech Republic, 17 to 21 September 1997:18. Google Scholar9. Siegelman SS. Assassins and zealots: variations in peer review. Radiology. 1991; 178:637-42. Google Scholar10. Godlee F, Gale DR, Martyn CN. The effect on the quality of peer review of blinding peer reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized, controlled trial [Abstract]. Proceedings of the International Congress on Biomedical Peer Review and Global Communications. Prague, Czech Republic, 17 to 21 September 1997:17. Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoThe Pathophysiologic Roles of Interleukin-6 in Human Disease Dimitris A. Papanicolaou , Ronald L. Wilder , Stavros C. Manolagas , and George P. Chrousos Firearm Injury PreventionInternists' and Surgeons' Attitudes toward Guns and Firearm Injury Prevention Christine K. Cassel , Elizabeth A. Nelson , Tom W. Smith , C. William Schwab , Barbara Barlow , and Nancy E. Gary Metrics Cited byTo see or not to see: a cross‐sectional study suggesting lack of bias towards authors in the peer‐review processPeering into Publication EthicsEthical Issues in Radiology Journalism, Peer Review, and ResearchDouble-Blind but More TransparentManuscript RejectionResearcher Views About Funding Sources and Conflicts of Interest in NanotechnologyA Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials on the Effectiveness of Computer-Tailored Physical Activity and Dietary Behavior Promotion Programs: an UpdateHiding Behind the Curtain: Anonomyous Versus Open Peer ReviewBlinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater studyStudent peer review decisions on submitted manuscripts are as stringent as faculty peer reviewersMedical Physics should adopt double-blind peer review of all manuscriptsPeer review delay and selectivity in ecology journalsBlinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journalsPerceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory StudyThe distribution of forensic journals, reflections on authorship practices, peer-review and role of the impact factorA systematic review of randomized trials on the effectiveness of computer-tailored education on physical activity and dietary behaviorsPeer Review—The Newcomers' PerspectiveNueva revisión de los requisitos de uniformidad para manuscritos enviados a revistas biomédicas: ¡atención a la ética!Incidence and Nature of Unblinding by Authors: Our Experience at Two Radiology Journals with Double-Blinded Peer Review PoliciesWriting for publitation: publish or perish?Annals of Internal Medicine at Age 75: Reflections on the Past 25 YearsEdward J. Huth, MD and Kathleen Case, MSDouble-blind but More TransparentEditor's WorldFrank Davidoff, MD, EditorHow to write a peer reviewA randomized controlled study of reviewer bias against an unconventional therapyCharacteristics of Peer Reviewed Clinical Medicine JournalsHow Can Physicians Keep Up-to-Date? 1 January 1998Volume 128, Issue 1Page: 66-68KeywordsClinical trialsFallsForecastingGender discriminationPeer review Issue Published: 1 January 1998 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 1998 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...