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 (68)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Quality of Care, Other  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Journalology/ Peer Review/ Authorship  • Alert me on articles by topic

A Randomized Controlled Trial

Fiona Godlee, BSc, MRCP; Catharine R. Gale, BSc; Christopher N. Martyn, DPhil, FRCP

JAMA. 1998;280:237-240.

Context.— Anxiety about bias, lack of accountability, and poor quality of peer review has led to questions about the imbalance in anonymity between reviewers and authors.

Objective.— To evaluate the effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers to the authors' identities and requiring reviewers to sign their reports.

Design.— Randomized controlled trial.

Setting.— A general medical journal.

Participants.— A total of 420 reviewers from the journal's database.

Intervention.— We modified a paper accepted for publication introducing 8 areas of weakness. Reviewers were randomly allocated to 5 groups. Groups 1 and 2 received manuscripts from which the authors' names and affiliations had been removed, while groups 3 and 4 were aware of the authors' identities. Groups 1 and 3 were asked to sign their reports, while groups 2 and 4 were asked to return their reports unsigned. The fifth group was sent the paper in the usual manner of the journal, with authors' identities revealed and a request to comment anonymously. Group 5 differed from group 4 only in that its members were unaware that they were taking part in a study.

Main Outcome Measure.— The number of weaknesses in the paper that were commented on by the reviewers.

Results.— Reports were received from 221 reviewers (53%). The mean number of weaknesses commented on was 2 (1.7, 2.1, 1.8, and 1.9 for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 and 5 combined, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in their performance. Reviewers who were blinded to authors' identities were less likely to recommend rejection than those who were aware of the authors' identities (odds ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.3-1.0).

Conclusions.— Neither blinding reviewers to the authors and origin of the paper nor requiring them to sign their reports had any effect on rate of detection of errors. Such measures are unlikely to improve the quality of peer review reports.

From BMJ, London, England (Dr Godlee), and MRC Environmental Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, England (Ms Gale and Dr Martyn).

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Editing the JPH
Vetter
J Public Health (Oxf) 2007;29:215-217.
FULL TEXT  

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

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

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  

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  

Reporting on Statistical Methods To Adjust for Confounding: A Cross-Sectional Survey
Mullner et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2002;136:122-126.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Editor's World
Davidoff
ANN INTERN MED 2001;134:1144-1146.
FULL TEXT  

Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?
Rothwell and Martyn
Brain 2000;123:1964-1969.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial
WALSH et al.
Br. J. Psychiatry 2000;176:47-51.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

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

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

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