This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (73)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Quality of Care, Other  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Alert me on articles by topic

A Randomized Trial

Susan van Rooyen, BSc; Fiona Godlee, MRCP; Stephen Evans, MSc; Richard Smith, FRCP; Nick Black, MD

JAMA. 1998;280:234-237.

Context.— Little research has been conducted into the quality of peer review and, in particular, the effects of blinding peer reviewers to authors' identities or masking peer reviewers' identities.

Objective.— To determine whether concealing authors' identities from reviewers (blinding) and/or revealing the reviewer's identity to a coreviewer (unmasking) affects the quality of reviews, the time taken to carry out reviews, and the recommendation regarding publication.

Design and Setting.— Randomized trial of 527 consecutive manuscripts submitted to BMJ, which were randomized and each sent to 2 peer reviewers.

Interventions.— Manuscripts were randomized as to whether the reviewers were unmasked, masked, or uninformed that a study was taking place. Two reviewers for each manuscript were randomized to receive either a blinded or an unblinded version.

Main Outcome Measures.— Mean total quality score, time taken to carry out the review, and recommendation regarding publication.

Results.— Of the 527 manuscripts entered into the study, 467 (89%) were successfully randomized and followed up. The mean total quality score was 2.87. There was little or no difference in review quality between the masked and unmasked groups (scores of 2.82 and 2.96, respectively) and between the blinded and unblinded groups (scores of 2.87 and 2.90, respectively). There was no apparent Hawthorne effect. There was also no significant difference between groups in the recommendations regarding publication or time taken to review.

Conclusions.— Blinding and unmasking made no editorially significant difference to review quality, reviewers' recommendations, or time taken to review. Other considerations should guide decisions as to the form of peer review adopted by a journal, and improvements in the quality of peer review should be sought via other means.

From BMJ (Ms van Rooyen and Drs Godlee and Smith) and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (Mr Evans and Dr Black), London, England.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Sensitivity analysis after multiple imputation under missing at random: a weighting approach
Carpenter et al.
Stat Methods Med Res 2007;16:259-275.
ABSTRACT  

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

Eliciting and using expert opinions about dropout bias in randomized controlled trials
White et al.
Clin Trials 2007;4:125-139.
ABSTRACT  

Quality assessment of reviewers' reports using a simple instrument.
Landkroon et al.
Obstet Gynecol 2006;108:979-985.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evidence based publishing
Tite and Schroter
BMJ 2006;333:366-366.
FULL TEXT  

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals.
Smith
JRSM 2006;99:178-182.
FULL TEXT  

Training the reviewer?
Millett
J. Orthod. 2006;33:1-2.
FULL TEXT  

Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors
Schroter et al.
JAMA 2006;295:314-317.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

What makes the best medical ethics journal? A North American perspective
Savulescu and Viens
J. Med. Ethics 2005;31:591-597.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

How to Review a Manuscript: A "Down-to-Earth" Approach
Roberts et al.
Acad. Psychiatry 2004;28:81-87.
FULL TEXT  

Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial
Schroter et al.
BMJ 2004;328:673.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Methodological Differences in Clinical Trials Evaluating Nonpharmacological and Pharmacological Treatments of Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis
Boutron et al.
JAMA 2003;290:1062-1070.
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  

Making Reviewers Visible: Openness, Accountability, and Credit
Godlee
JAMA 2002;287:2762-2765.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review
Jefferson et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2784-2786.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review
Jefferson et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2786-2790.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Peer review of statistics in medical research: the other problem
Bacchetti
BMJ 2002;324:1271-1273.
FULL TEXT  

Effect of Patient Reminder/Recall Interventions on Immunization Rates: A Review
Szilagyi et al.
JAMA 2000;284:1820-1827.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The New Millennium: time for a change!
Holzel and Van Diest
J. Clin. Pathol. 2000;53:1-2.
FULL TEXT  

Reviewers, Authors, and Editors: Balance of Power
Bressler
Arch Ophthalmol 1999;117:524-526.
FULL TEXT  

Opening up BMJ peer review
Smith
BMJ 1999;318:4-5.
FULL TEXT  

Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial
van Rooyen et al.
BMJ 1999;318:23-27.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evidence on peer review---scientific quality control or smokescreen?
Goldbeck-Wood
BMJ 1999;318:44-45.
FULL TEXT  

Peer Review in Prague
Rennie
JAMA 1998;280:214-215.
FULL TEXT  

What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal?
Black et al.
JAMA 1998;280:231-233.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Freedom and Responsibility in Medical Publication: Setting the Balance Right
Rennie
JAMA 1998;280:300-302.
FULL TEXT