A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review

D. N. Laband and M. J. Piette
Department of Economics and Finance, Salisbury State University, Md.

OBJECTIVE--To determine whether articles published in journals using blinded peer review receive significantly more or fewer citations than those published in journals using nonblinded peer review. DESIGN--Drawing from a sample of 1051 full articles published in 28 economics journals during 1984, we used nonlinear regression and ordered probit techniques to estimate the impact of blinded peer review on citations of these articles in 1985 through 1989. OUTCOMES--Citations of articles. RESULTS--Articles published in journals using blinded peer review were cited significantly more than articles published in journals using nonblinded peer review, controlling for a variety of author, article, and journal attributes. CONCLUSIONS--Nonblinded peer review apparently suffers from type I error to a greater extent than blinded peer review. That is, journals using nonblinded peer review published a larger fraction of papers that should not have been published than do journals using blinded peer review. When reviewers know the identity of the author(s) of an article, they are able to (and evidently do) substitute particularistic criteria for universalistic criteria in their evaluative process.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The ups and downs of peer review
Benos et al.
Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2007;31:145-152.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Journal Reviewer Ratings: Issues of Particularistic Bias, Agreement, and Predictive Validity Within the Manuscript Review Process
Vecchio
Bulletin of Science Technology Society 2006;26:228-242.
ABSTRACT  

"Eigenlob": self-citation in biomedical journals
Falagas and Kavvadia
FASEB J. 2006;20:1039-1042.
FULL TEXT  

Method Matters: An Empirical Study of Impact in Cognitive Neuroscience
Fellows et al.
J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2005;17:850-858.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Incidence and Nature of Unblinding by Authors: Our Experience at Two Radiology Journals with Double-Blinded Peer Review Policies
Katz et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2002;179:1415-1417.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review: A Randomized Trial
van Rooyen et al.
JAMA 1998;280:234-237.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today--Part 2
CAMPANARIO
Science Communication 1998;19:277-306.
ABSTRACT  

JSGI: Where We Are I Year Later
Lobo
Reproductive Sciences 1995;2:515-515.
 

Promoting research into peer review
Smith
BMJ 1994;309:143-144.
FULL TEXT