 |
|
Masking Author Identity in Peer Review
What Factors Influence Masking Success?
Mildred K. Cho, PhD;
Amy C. Justice, MD, PhD;
Margaret A. Winker, MD;
Jesse A. Berlin, ScD;
Joseph F. Waeckerle, MD;
Michael L. Callaham, MD;
Drummond Rennie, MD;
and the PEER Investigators
JAMA. 1998;280:243-245.
Context.— In a previous study, we found that masking success was higher at a journal that masked reviewers to author identity. We hypothesized that masking policy or other factors could be associated with masking success.
Objectives.— To evaluate differences in success of masking reviewers to author identity at 7 biomedical journals and to identify factors associated with these differences.
Design.— Written questionnaire.
Participants.— Reviewers at 3 journals with a long-standing policy of masking author identity (Annals of Emergency Medicine, Epidemiology, and Journal of the American Geriatrics Society) and 4 journals without a policy of masking author identity (Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and Ophthalmology).
Main Outcome Measures.— Masking success (percentage of reviewers successfully masked) and reviewer characteristics associated with masking.
Results.— There was no significant difference in masking success between journals with a policy of masking (60%) and those without (58%) (P=.92). We found no association between masking success and a policy of masking when adjusted for the reviewer characteristics of age, sex, years of reviewing experience, number of articles published, number of articles reviewed, percentage of time spent in research, editorial experience, or academic rank (odds ratio [OR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-2.8; P=.43). In multivariable analysis of reviewer characteristics, reviewers spending a greater percentage of time in research, the only significant predictor of masking success, were less likely to be successfully masked (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02) (P=.04).
Conclusions.— Masking success appears unrelated to a journal policy of masking, but is associated with reviewers' research experience and could be affected by other characteristics. Using reviewers with less research and reviewing experience might increase masking success, but the effect on review quality is unknown.
From the Center for Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (Dr Cho); Division of General Internal Medicine and Program for Health Care Research, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, and University Hospitals of Cleveland, Case Western Reserve University (Dr Justice); Division of Biostatistics, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology and Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia (Dr Berlin); Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Missouri Kansas City School of Medicine (Dr Waeckerle); Division of Emergency Medicine, University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine (Dr Callaham); Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco (Dr Rennie). Dr Winker is Senior Editor and Dr Rennie is Deputy Editor (West), JAMA.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer-review process of an ophthalmic journal
Isenberg et al.
Br J Ophthalmol 2009;93:881-884.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The ups and downs of peer review
Benos et al.
Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2007;31:145-152.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance
Ross et al.
JAMA 2006;295:1675-1680.
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
Referees' Attitudes toward Open Peer Review and Electronic Transmission of Papers
Melero and Lopez-Santovena
Food Science and Technology International 2001;7:521-527.
ABSTRACT
Reviewers, Authors, and Editors: Balance of Power
Bressler
Arch Ophthalmol 1999;117:524-526.
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
Freedom and Responsibility in Medical Publication: Setting the Balance Right
Rennie
JAMA 1998;280:300-302.
FULL TEXT
|
