Blind versus Nonblind Review: Survey of Selected Medical Journals

Abstract

The publication of scientific research in medical journals is a lengthy process. Submitted manuscripts are often reviewed by two or more outside reviewers who evaluate each manuscript for publication acceptability. The process of manuscript evaluation by an editor-selected reviewer (“peers” or “referees”) is termed “peer review.” One issue involving the peer-review process is the use of blind versus nonblind referees. The purpose of this survey was to determine the percentage of a select group of medicine-related journals that blind their reviewers. We surveyed 114 English language journals. Journal editors were sent a survey that asked two questions: (1) are the referees who review your manuscripts blinded to the identity of the authors? and (2) is the editor blinded to the identity of the authors until after the review of the manuscripts is complete? Ninety-six of 114 (84.2 percent) surveys were returned. Ten journals published invited manuscripts only and were excluded from the survey. Only 18.6 percent (16 of 86) of the journals currently blind referees. None of the journals' editors were blind to the identity of the manuscripts' authors.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Lock

. A difficult balance: Editorial peer review in medicine. Philadelphia: ISI Press, 1985.

Abramowitz

Gomes

Abramowitz

. Publish or politic: Referee bias in manuscript review. J Appl Soc Psychol 1975; 5: 187–200.

Mahoney

. Publication prejudices: An editorial study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cogn Ther Res 1977; 1: 161–75.

Zuckerman

Merton

. Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalization, structure and function of the referee system. Minerva 1971; 9: 66–100.

Peters

Ceci

. Peer review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behav Brain Res 1982; 5: 187–95.

Moossy

. Anonymous authors, anonymous referees: An editorial exploration. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 1985; 44: 225–8.

Ingelfinger

. Peer review in biomedical publication. Am J Med 1974; 56: 686–92.

Relman

. Editorial review (letter). N Engl J Med 1982; 307: 899.

Medical Sciences. In: Yuster

, ed. Ulrich's international periodicals directory: A classified guide to current periodicals, foreign and domestic. New York: Reed Publishing, 1985: 1043–174.