ChoMK, JusticeAC, WinkerMA, . Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER investigators. JAMA.1998;280:243–245.
2.
JusticeAC, ChoMK, WinkerMA, BerlinJA, RennieD.1998. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER investigators. JAMA.1998;280:240–242.
3.
van RooyenS, GodleeF, EvansS, SmithR, BlackN. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA.1998;280:234–237.
4.
van RooyenS, GodleeF, EvansS, BlackN, SmithR. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ.1999;318:23–27.
5.
McNuttRA, EvansAT, FletcherRH, FletcherSW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. JAMA. 1990;263:1371–1376.
6.
RooyenS, GodleeF, EvansS, SmithR, BlackN. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. J Gen Intern Med.1999;14:622–624.
7.
BergTD, IrwinCEJr. Blind no more. J Adolesc Health. 2009;45:7.
8.
RegehrG, BordageG. To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer. Med Educ.2006;40:832–839.
9.
GordonAJ. Substance abuse journal: new beginnings. Subst Abus. 2013;34:339–341.
10.
EvaKW. To blind or not to blind? That remains the question. Med Educ.2012;46:924–925.
11.
Society for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and Other Drugs. The Farmington Consensus. Addiction.1997;92:1617–1618. Available at: http://www.parint.org/isajewebsite/farmcon.pdf. Accessed February 11, 2014.
12.
SchroterS, BlackN, EvansS, GodleeF, OsorioL, SmithR. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?J R Soc Med. 2008;101:507–514.
13.
SchroterS, BlackN, EvansS, CarpenterJ, GodleeF, SmithR. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ.2004;328:673–675.
