Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Glantz SA,
   3. Bero LA

   . Inappropriate and appropriate selection of ‘peers’ in grant review. JAMA 1994;272:114–16 doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03520020040010 pmid:8015118

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   2. Rowland F

   . The peer-review process. Learned Publishing. 2002;15:247–58 doi:10.1087/095315102760319206

   CrossRef
3. 3.↵
   2. Weller AC

   . Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Medford: Information Today, Inc; 2001
4. 4.↵
   2. Choi M,
   3. Holliday EB,
   4. Jagsi R, et al

   . Citation-based estimation of scholarly activity among domestic academic radiation oncologists: five-year update. J Radiat Oncol 2014;3:115–22 doi:10.1007/s13566-013-0103-x pmid:24678385

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Jagsi R,
   3. Guancial EA,
   4. Worobey CC, et al

   . The “gender gap” in authorship of academic medical literature: a 35-year perspective. N Engl J Med 2006;355:281–87 doi:10.1056/NEJMsa053910 pmid:16855268

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   2. Budden AE,
   3. Tregenza T,
   4. Aarssen LW, et al

   . Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol Evol 2008;23:4–6 doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008 pmid:17963996

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   2. Wenneras C,
   3. Wold A

   . Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 1997;387:341–43 doi:10.1038/387341a0 pmid:9163412

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   2. Fisher M,
   3. Friedman SB,
   4. Strauss B

   . The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA 1994;272:143–46 doi:10.1001/jama.272.2.143 pmid:8015127

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
9. 9.↵
   2. Ross JS,
   3. Gross CP,
   4. Desai MM, et al

   . Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA 2006;295:1675–80 doi:10.1001/jama.295.14.1675 pmid:16609089

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    2. Link AM

    . US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA 1998;280:246–47 doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.246 pmid:9676670

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    2. Ernst E,
    3. Kienbacher T

    . Chauvinism. Nature 1991;352:560 doi:10.1038/352560b0 pmid:1865917

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Peters DP,
    3. Ceci SJ

    . Peer-review research: objections and obligations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1982;5:246–55 doi:10.1017/S0140525X00011754

    CrossRef
13. 13.↵
    2. Ware M

    . Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives. London: Publishing Research Consortium; 2008:4
14. 14.↵
    2. Brown RJ

    . Double anonymity in peer review within the chemistry periodicals community. Learned Publishing 2007;20:131–27 doi:10.1087/174148507X185108

    CrossRefWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    2. Baggs JG,
    3. Broome ME,
    4. Dougherty MC, et al

    . Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. J Adv Nurs 2008;64:131–38 doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04816.x pmid:18764847

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    2. Justice AC,
    3. Cho MK,
    4. Winker MA, et al

    . Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998;280:240–42 doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.240 pmid:9676668

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. 17.↵
    2. Ceci SJ,
    3. Peters D

    . How blind is blind review? American Psychologist 1984;39:1491 doi:10.1037/0003-066X.39.12.1491

    CrossRefWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    2. Yankauer A

    . How blind is blind review? Am J Public Health 1991;81:843–45 doi:10.2105/AJPH.81.7.843 pmid:2053657

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    2. Blank RM

    . The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from the American Economic Review. The American Economic Review 1991;81:1041–67

    Web of Science
20. 20.↵
    2. van Rooyen S,
    3. Godlee F,
    4. Evans S, et al

    . Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA 1998;280:234–37 doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.234 pmid:9676666

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    2. Jagsi R,
    3. Bennett KE,
    4. Griffith KA, et al

    . Attitudes toward blinding of peer review and perceptions of efficacy within a small biomedical specialty. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014;89:940–46 doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.04.021 pmid:25035195

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Lee CJ,
    3. Sugimoto CR,
    4. Zhang G, et al

    . Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012;64:2–17 doi:10.1002/asi.22784

    CrossRef
23. 23.↵
    2. Ware M

    . Peer review in scholarly journals: perspective of the scholarly community—results from an international study. Information Services and Use 2008;28:109–12
24. 24.↵
    2. Katz DS,
    3. Proto AV,
    4. Olmsted WW

    . Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:1415–17 doi:10.2214/ajr.179.6.1791415 pmid:12438028

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Krinsky G

    . How to avoid “unblinding” the peer review process. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;172:1474 doi:10.2214/ajr.172.6.10350273 pmid:10350273

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. McNutt RA,
    3. Evans AT,
    4. Fletcher RH, et al

    . The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA 1990;263:1371–36 doi:10.1001/jama.263.10.1371 pmid:8410407

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    2. Evans AT,
    3. McNutt RA,
    4. Fletcher SW, et al

    . The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med 1993;8:422–28 pmid:8410407

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    2. Cho MK,
    3. Justice AC,
    4. Winker MA, et al

    . Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators. JAMA 1998;280:243–45 doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.243 pmid:9676669

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
29. 29.↵
    2. Stossel TP

    . Reviewer status and review quality: experience of the Journal of Clinical Investigation. N Engl J Med 1985;312:658–59 doi:10.1056/NEJM198503073121024 pmid:3974642

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
30. 30.↵
    2. Black N,
    3. van Rooyen S,
    4. Godlee F, et al

    . What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 1998;280:231–33 doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.231 pmid:9676665

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
31. 31.↵
    2. Nylenna M,
    3. Riis P,
    4. Karlsson Y

    . Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts: effects of referee characteristics and publication language. JAMA 1994;272:149–51 doi:10.1001/jama.272.2.149 pmid:8015129

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
32. 32.↵
    2. Van Rooyen S,
    3. Godlee F,
    4. Evans S, et al

    . Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 1999;318:23–27 doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23 pmid:9872878

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
33. 33.↵
    2. Fletcher RH,
    3. Fletcher SW

    . Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics 1997;3:35–50 doi:10.1007/s11948-997-0015-5

    CrossRef
34. 34.↵
    2. Castillo M

    . Peer review: past, present, and future. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1833–35 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3025 pmid:22403775

    FREE Full Text
35. 35.↵
    2. Cartlidge E

    . Peer review steps out of the shadows. Physics World 2007;20:29 doi:10.1088/2058-7058/20/1/32

    CrossRef
36. 36.↵
    2. Walsh E,
    3. Rooney M,
    4. Appleby L, et al

    . Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2000;176:47–51 doi:10.1192/bjp.176.1.47 pmid:10789326

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
37. 37.↵
    2. Greaves S,
    3. Scott J,
    4. Clarke M, et al

    . Nature's trial of open peer review. Nature 2006. doi:10.1038/nature05535 doi:10.1038/nature05535

    CrossRef
38. 38.↵
    Pros and cons of open peer review. Nat Neurosci 1999;2:197–98 pmid:10195206

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
39. 39.↵
    2. Berger E

    . The JAMA and NEJM rulings and their impact on the sanctity of confidential peer review. Ann Emerg Med 2008;51:737–39 doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.04.010

    CrossRef