Article1998

Masking Author Identity in Peer Review

Mildred K. Cho · Amy C. Justice · Margaret A. Winker · Jesse A. Berlin · Joseph F. Waeckerle · Michael L. Callaham +2 more

104 citations0/0 files storedJAMA

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Publishing and Scholarly Communication Academic Writing and Publishing Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

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.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 104 citations exist upstream.

References

1998Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?1994The Effects of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review

Cited by

2014Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study 2013Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities 1999Evidence on peer review—scientific quality control or smokescreen?2007To Identify or Not to Identify: A Theoretical Model of Receiver Responses to Anonymous Communication 2008Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals 2006Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies 2014Use of double‐blind peer review to increase author diversity 2011Alternatives to Peer Review: Novel Approaches for Research Evaluation

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.