This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related articles  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Journalology/ Peer Review/ Authorship  • Humanities  • Medicine and the Media  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: Dr Ross and colleagues¹ provided evidence that the likelihood of acceptance of abstracts submitted for presentation at the American Heart Association annual scientific sessions was affected by the type of peer review. There was a higher percentage of abstracts accepted from authors from the United States, other English-speaking countries, and prestigious academic institutions with open rather than blinded peer review. They conclude that adoption of blinded peer review by scientific research meetings is a reasonable, low-cost intervention with substantial benefit and that future research should evaluate the effect of blinded peer review on manuscript reviewer bias.

However, their findings may not lead to these conclusions because they did not directly assess and compare the quality of research submitted in the form of abstracts by authors of different countries and institutions. Although it is perhaps challenging to perform, this would be the only way to derive a conclusion . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Matthew E. Falagas, MD, MSc
m.falagas@aibs.gr
Alfa Institute of Biomedical Sciences (AIBS)
Athens, Greece

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLES

Abstract Acceptance and Blinded Peer Review—Reply
Joseph S. Ross and Harlan M. Krumholz
JAMA. 2006;296(10):1230-1231.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance
Joseph S. Ross, Cary P. Gross, Mayur M. Desai, Yuling Hong, Augustus O. Grant, Stephen R. Daniels, Vladimir C. Hachinski, Raymond J. Gibbons, Timothy J. Gardner, and Harlan M. Krumholz
JAMA. 2006;295(14):1675-1680.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT