Many people believe that reviewers are less likely to produce unfair and biased reviews when they do not know the identity of the authors. However, there is surprisingly little evidence of such bias, there is little evidence that masked review is effective in addressing bias, and masked review has potential costs and drawbacks to the research community. More empirical work on the existence and nature of bias is needed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlankR.M.
(1991).
The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: Experimental evidence from The American Economic Review.
American Economic Review,
81,
1041–1067.
2.
BornmannL.MutzR.DanielH.D.
(2007).
Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Infometrics,
1,
226–238.
3.
CeciS.J.PetersD.
(1984).
How blind is blind review?American Psychologist,
39,
1491–1494.
4.
ChoM.K.JusticeA.C.WinkerM.A.BerlinJ.A.WaeckerleJ.F.CallahamM.L.RennieD.
(1998).
Masking author identity in peer review: What factors influence masking success?Journal of the American Medical Association,
280,
243–245.
5.
ClearyJ.D.AlexanderB.
(1988).
Blind versus nonblind review: Survey of selected medical journals.
Drug Intelligence and Clinical Pharmacy,
22,
601–602.
6.
EpsteinS.
(1995).
What can be done to improve the journal review process.
American Psychologist,
50,
883–885.
7.
FisherM.FriedmanS.B.StraussB.
(1994).
The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review.
Journal of the American Medical Association,
272,
143–146.
8.
FranziniL.R.
(1987).
Editors are not blind.
American Psychologist,
42,
104.
9.
GarfunkelJ.M.UlshenM.H.HamrickH.J.LawsonE.E.
(1994).
Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers' recommendations and editorial decisions.
Journal of the American Medical Association,
272,
137–138.
10.
GidezL.I.
(1991).
The peer review process: Strengths and weaknesses.
Serials Librarian,
19,
75–85.
11.
GilbertJ.R.WilliamsE.S.LundbergG.D.
(1994).
Is there gender bias in JAMA's review process?Journal of the American Medical Association,
272,
139–142.
12.
GodleeF.GaleC.R.MartynC.N.
(1998).
Effect of the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports.
Journal of the American Medical Association,
280,
237–240.
13.
JusticeA.C.ChoM.K.WinklerM.A.BerlinJ.A.RennieD.
(1998).
Does masking author identity improve peer review quality?Journal of the American Medical Association,
280,
240–242.
14.
MarshH.W.JayasingheU.W.BondN.W.
(2008).
Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability.
American Psychologist,
63,
160–168.
15.
McNuttM.D.EvansR.T.FletcherR.H.FletcherS.W.
(1990).
The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review.
Journal of the American Medical Association,
263,
1371–1376.
16.
MoosyJ.MoosyY.R.
(1985).
Anonymous authors, anonymous referees: An editorial exploration.
Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology,
263,
225–228.
17.
PetersD.CeciS.J.
(1982).
Peer review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles submitted again.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
5,
187–196.
18.
PettyR.E.FlemingM.A.FabigrarL.R.
(1999).
The review process at PSPB: Correlates of interreviewer agreement and manuscript acceptance.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
25,
188–203.
19.
SurwilloW.
(1986).
Anonymous reviewing and the peer- review process.
American Psychologist,
41,
218.
20.
ValianV.
(1999).
Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
van RooyenS.GodleeF.EvansS.SmithR.BlackN.
(1998).
Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial.
Journal of the American Medical Association,
280,
234–237.
22.
WennerasC.WoldA.
(1997).
Nepotism and sexism in peer review.
Nature,
387,
341–343.
23.
YankauerA.
(1991).
How blind is blind review?American Journal of Public Health,
81,
843–845.
