Open AccessEffect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review
Author(s) -
Van Rooyen Susan,
Godlee Fiona,
Evans Stephen,
Smith Richard,
Black Nick
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
journal of general internal medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.746
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 1525-1497
pISSN - 0884-8734
DOI - 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.09058.x
Subject(s) - blinding , medicine , randomized controlled trial , alternative medicine , family medicine , medical journal , medline , quality (philosophy) , surgery , pathology , philosophy , epistemology , political science , law
The objectives of this study were to see whether, in the opinion of authors, blinding or unmasking or a combination of the two affects the quality of reviews and to compare authors' and editors' assessments. In a trial conducted in the British Medical Journal , 527 consecutive manuscripts were randomized into one of three groups, and each was sent to two reviewers, who were randomized to receive a blinded or an unblinded copy of the manuscript. Review quality was assessed by two editors and the corresponding author. There was no significant difference in assessment between groups or between editors and authors. Reviews recommending publication were scored more highly than those recommending rejection.