The British Journal of Occupational Therapy strives to publish high quality research and scholarly papers. The journal faces a challenge in how best to meet this aim in the future. Regardless of the choices it makes, the focus on quality cannot be lost. One of the key features of quality is the peer review process, which all submitted articles must undergo. This paper reviews the policy of double-blind (anonymous) peer reviewing and suggests that an open peer review policy would provide greater transparency, accountability and credit, thereby enhancing the quality of the journal and strengthening its position for the future.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrownHM (2003) Peer review should not be anonymous. British Medical Journal, 326, 824.
2.
Cho MK, Justice AK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Waeckerle JF, Callaham ML, Drummond R, the PEER Investigators (1998) Masking author identity in peer review: What factors influence masking success?Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 243–45.
3.
DavysDPopeKTaylorJ (2006) Professionalism, prejudice and personal taste: Does it matter what we wear?British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69(7), 339–41.
4.
Editorial Board (2003) British Journal of Occupational Therapy: Reviewer's guide. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66(5), 227–30.
5.
Editorial Board (2005) Internationalisation and impact factors. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68(2), 97–98.
6.
FerrierA (2006) Does it matter what we wear? (Letter.)British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69(8), 391.
7.
Goldbeck-WoodS (1999) Evidence on peer review – scientific quality control or smokescreen?British Medical Journal, 318, 44–45.
8.
KassirerJPCampionEW (1994) Peer review: Crude and understudied but indispensable. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 96–97.
9.
McDonaldRBalligerCCorrS (2006) WFOT 2006, Occupational therapists in action: Local and global. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69(8), 349.
10.
McNuttRAEvansATFletcherRHFletcherSW (1990) The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: A randomised trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1371–76.
11.
Van RooyenSGodleeFEvansSBlackNSmithR (1999) Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewer's recommendations: A randomised trial. British Medical Journal, 318, 23–27.
12.
WalkerM (2005) Time to make an impact. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68(2), 55.
13.
WalshERooneyMApplebyLWilkinsonG (2000) Open peer review: A randomised control trial. British Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 47–51.
14.
WhiteE (2000) To publish or not to publish? A reviewer's eye view. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63(12), 565.
