Peer Review: Single-blind, Double-blind, or All the Way-blind?

Overview

Journal Int Urogynecol J

Publisher Springer

Specialties Gynecology & Obstetrics
Urology

Date 2019 Dec 11

PMID 31820012

Citations 3

Authors

Tony Bazi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

A scholarly peer review is the process whereby referees scrutinize research work or a manuscript within their field of expertise and decide on its acceptability for publication in a journal or scientific proceeding. Ideally, peer review is impartial. Among the many models of peer review, the single blind is currently the most adopted model in scientific journals. The double-blind model has been claimed to decrease bias, despite some difficulty in implementation.

Citing Articles

Double-anonymous peer review comes to JB.

OToole G J Bacteriol. 2023; 205(10):e0008022.

PMID: 37747191 PMC: 10601697. DOI: 10.1128/jb.00080-22.

Effective Peer Review: Who, Where, or What?.

Hall 3rd R JID Innov. 2022; 2(6):100162.

PMID: 36303598 PMC: 9594632. DOI: 10.1016/j.xjidi.2022.100162.

Does origin of article impact citation metrics in .

Corey L, Walker C, Corey A, Konel J, Khalil A, Jang H Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2022; 40:100958.

PMID: 35313463 PMC: 8933665. DOI: 10.1016/j.gore.2022.100958.

References

Haffar S, Bazerbachi F, Murad M . Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019; 94(4):670-676. DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.004. View

Okike K, Hug K, Kocher M, Leopold S . Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige. JAMA. 2016; 316(12):1315-6. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.11014. View

Chung K, Shauver M, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich R . Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015; 136(6):1369-1377. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001820. View

. Nature journals offer double-blind review. Nature. 2015; 518(7539):274. DOI: 10.1038/518274b. View

Opthof T, Coronel R, Janse M . The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias. Cardiovasc Res. 2002; 56(3):339-46. DOI: 10.1016/s0008-6363(02)00712-5. View

Ross J, Gross C, Desai M, Hong Y, Grant A, Daniels S . Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA. 2006; 295(14):1675-80. DOI: 10.1001/jama.295.14.1675. View

Tomkins A, Zhang M, Heavlin W . Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017; 114(48):12708-12713. PMC: 5715744. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1707323114. View

Justice A, Cho M, Winker M, Berlin J, Rennie D . Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators. JAMA. 1998; 280(3):240-2. DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.3.240. View

Nylenna M, Riis P, Karlsson Y . Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. JAMA. 1994; 272(2):149-51. View

10.

Brubaker L . Conflict of interest: what is the role of our professional societies?. Neurourol Urodyn. 2012; 31(8):1217-8. DOI: 10.1002/nau.22246. View

11.

Najjar W, Mouanness M, Rameh G, Bazi T . International authorship in leading world journals on incontinence and pelvic floor disorders: Is it truly international?. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019; 241:104-108. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.08.017. View

12.

Toth J . Blind Myself: Simple Steps for Editors and Software Providers to Take Against Affiliation Bias. Sci Eng Ethics. 2019; 26(3):1875-1877. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-019-00128-w. View

13.

Van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N . Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1998; 280(3):234-7. DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.3.234. View

14.

Alam M, Kim N, Havey J, Rademaker A, Ratner D, Tregre B . Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study. Br J Dermatol. 2011; 165(3):563-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10432.x. View

15.

Godlee F, Gale C, Martyn C . Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998; 280(3):237-40. DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.3.237. View

16.

Rezaeian M . Dealing with the Serious Underrepresentation of Editors from Low-income Countries. Epidemiology. 2015; 26(5):e55-6. DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000344. View