Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?
JAMAPublished 15 July 1998
Amy C. Justice, Mildred K. Cho, Margaret A. Winker, Jesse A. Berlin, Drummond Rennie, and the PEER Investigators
Citations278
SJR quartileQ1
SJR score5.35
SNIP10.71
Generate an AI Snapshot to get a quick, structured summary of this paper.
Study Snapshot
ObjectiveStudy objective
MethodsResearch methodology
PopulationPopulation studied
Sample sizeSample sizes
OutcomesStudy outcomes here
ResultsStudy results comes here
LimitationsResearch study limitations comes here
A concise AI-generated summary of the paper will appear here once you click Generate AI Snapshot.
TL;DR
Masking reviewers to author identity as commonly practiced does not improve quality of reviews, and the inability to mask reviewers to the identity of well-known authors may have contributed to the lack of effect.
Abstract
Masking reviewers to author identity as commonly practiced does not improve quality of reviews. Since manuscripts of well-known authors are more difficult to mask, and those manuscripts may be more likely to benefit from masking, the inability to mask reviewers to the identity of well-known authors may have contributed to the lack of effect.
Keywords
Social SciencesMedicineArts and Humanities
American Economic ReviewThe Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review
444 Citations2016Rebecca M. Blank
American Journal of Public HealthHow blind is blind review?
65 Citations1991Alfred Yankauer
Until more definitive data are in, reviewer preference, which differs from journal to journal, seems the most legitimate guide to journal policy on blind review.
Science and Engineering EthicsEvidence for the effectiveness of peer review
63 Citations1997Robert H. Fletcher, Suzanne W. Fletcher
In a study of whether manuscripts are improved by peer review and editing, articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine were improved in 33 of 34 dimensions of reporting quality, but published articles still had room for improvement.
Drug Intelligence & Clinical PharmacyBlind versus Nonblind Review: Survey of Selected Medical Journals
26 Citations1988John D. Cleary, Bruce Alexander
The purpose of this survey was to determine the percentage of a select group of medicine-related journals that blind their reviewers, and found none of the journals' editors were blind to the identity of the manuscripts' authors.