Skip to main content
Log in

Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review

  • Brief Report
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Lock S. A difficult balance: editorial peer review in medicine. London, UK: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kassirer JP, Campion EW. Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA. 1994;272:96–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fisher M, Friedman SB, Strauss B. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA. 1994;272:143–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Strasburger VC. Righting medical writing. JAMA. 1985;254:1789–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Yankauer A. Peer review again. Am J Public Health. 1982;72:239–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Shapiro S. The decision to publish: ethical dilemmas. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38:365–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ingelfinger FJ. Peer review in biomedical publication. Am J Med. 1974;56:686–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Robin ED, Burke CM. Peer review in medical journals. Chest. 1987;91:252–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Feinstein AR. Some ethical issues among editors, reviewers and readers. J Chronic Dis. 1986;39:491–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. JAMA. 1990;263:1371–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black NA. The effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1998;280:234–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker M, et al. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial JAMA. 1998;280:240–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Laband DN, Piette MJ. A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. JAMA. 1994;272:147–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. van Rooyen S, Black N, Godlee F. Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:625–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and what makes a good review in a general medical journal? JAMA. 1998;280:231–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Funding was received from the NHSE North Thames Research & Development Responsive Funding Group, London, U.K.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S. et al. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. J GEN INTERN MED 14, 622–624 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.09058.x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.09058.x

Key words

Navigation