Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports
Article Abstract:
Requiring reviewers of manuscripts to sign their reviews and eliminating the names of the authors does not appear to improve the peer review process. Researchers introduced 8 areas of weakness in design, analysis, or interpretation into a manuscript already accepted for publication and sent it to 221 reviewers. Some of the reviewers did not know the identity of the authors and some were asked to sign their review. There was no significant difference between the groups in the number of flaws identified.
Publication Name: JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association
Subject: Health
ISSN: 0098-7484
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
US and Non-US Submissions
Article Abstract:
There appears to be a bias in favor of publishing manuscripts by US authors even when the reviewers are not from the US. Editors at the journal Gastroenterology sent all manuscripts received in 1995 and 1996 to reviewers, including non-US reviewers. Non-US manuscripts were similarly rated by both US and non-US reviewers. However, US manuscripts tended to be rated more highly. Non-US reviewers rated them higher than non-US manuscripts and US reviewers rated them much more highly than non-US manuscripts.
Publication Name: JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association
Subject: Health
ISSN: 0098-7484
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal?
Article Abstract:
There appear to be no characteristics that make a scientist a good reviewer except a background in statistics or epidemiology. This was the conclusion of a study of the reviews of 420 manuscripts by two editors and one of the authors using a seven-item scale. Except for training in statistics or epidemiology, no consistent factor was linked to a good-quality review. Editors may have to evaluate all new reviewers and continue to use those who produce good-quality reviews.
Publication Name: JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association
Subject: Health
ISSN: 0098-7484
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Homes on the range: are the multinationals that own some of Britain's nursing homes raising standards or are they just after profits. part 2
- Abstracts: Trends in Medicare payments in the last year of life. Putting power into patient choice. Medicare policy for future generations - a search for a permanent solution
- Abstracts: Long-term prognosis of seizures with onset in childhood. Gaining a perspectiveon childhood seizures. Tapeworms and seizures--treatment and prevention
- Abstracts: Critically appraising literature. Preparing a proposal for research. Designing and carrying out a clinical audit
- Abstracts: Peer Review in Prague. Does Masking Author identity Improve Peer Review Quality? Freedom and Responsibility in Medical Publication