Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger".

SIRI M. VINTHER · Ole Haagen Nielsen · Jacob Rosenberg · Niels Keiding · Torben Veith Schroeder

19 citations0/0 files storedPubMed

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

INTRODUCTION: Research into the peer review process has previously been conducted in English-language journals. This study deals with a Danish general medical journal with a relatively small pool of both reviewers and readers. The aim of the study was to compare the quality of reviews produced by identifiable and anonymous reviewers, and further to characterize authors' and reviewers' attitudes towards different peer review systems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was conducted as a blinded, randomised controlled trial. Each manuscript was reviewed by an identifiable and an anonymous reviewer. Review quality was subsequently assessed by two blinded editors, using the validated Review Quality Instrument. Reviewers' and authors' attitudes towards different peer review systems were characterized using questionnaires. RESULTS: The study included 364 reviews. There was no statistically significant difference in quality between anonymous and identifiable reviewers' evaluations. 55% of the authors preferred the evaluation produced by the identifiable reviewer (p < 0.05). 26% of the identifiable reviewers found it unpleasant that authors knew their identities; 43% of the anonymous reviewers found it reassuring that authors did not know their identities. Regarding reviewers' preferences for different peer review systems, 38% preferred a double-blinded, 34% preferred a single-blinded and 28% preferred an open system. For authors, the corresponding proportions were 43%, 19% and 37%. CONCLUSION: Implementing open peer review will not affect review quality, but lack of anonymity may cause reviewers, already limited in number, to decline when asked to review. Even though this would be a serious implication for a national journal like the Ugeskrift for Læger, the implementation of an open system should be discussed. FUNDING: not relevant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.

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 — 19 citations exist upstream.

References

2006Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals 1999Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial 2002Effects of Editorial Peer Review 1998Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports 1998Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?2000Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial 1990The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial 1999Opening up BMJ peer review

Cited by

2015Comparison of self-citation by peer reviewers in a journal with single-blind peer review versus a journal with open peer review 2019Towards the enhancement of quality publication practices in clinical psychological science 2023Peer reviewers' willingness to review, their recommendations and quality of reviews after the Finnish Medical Journal switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review 2013Criticism of peer review and ways to improve it

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.