Does Unblinding Make One King in the Land of the Blind(Ed)?

Benos DJ Bashari E Chaves JM Gaggar A Kapoor N LaFrance M . The ups and downs of peer review. Adv Physiol Educ 2007;31(2):145–52 doi: 10.1152/advan.00104.2006.

Burnham JC . The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA 1990;263(10): 1323–9 doi: 10.1001/jama.1990.03440100023003.

Hojat M Gonnella JS Caelleigh AS . 2003. Impartial judgment by the “gatekeepers” of Science: Fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Adv Health Sci Educ 8(1):75–96 doi: 10.1023/A:1022670432373.

Lee CJ Sugimoto CR Zhang G Cronin B . Bias in peer review. J Assoc Inform Sci Technol 2013; 64(1):2–17 doi: 10.1002/asi.22784.

Smith R . Classical peer review: An empty gun. Breast Cancer Res 2010;12(Suppl 4):S13 doi: 10.1186/bcr2742.

McNutt RA Evans AT Fletcher RH Fletcher SW . The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial. JAMA 1990;263(10): 1371–6 doi: 10.1001/jama.1990.03440100079012.

Blank RM . The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: Experimental evidence from The American Economic Review. Am Econ Rev 1991 81(5): 1041–67.

Fisher M Friedman SB Strauss B . The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA 1994;272(2):143–6 doi: 10.1001/jama.1994.03520020069019.

van Rooyen S Godlee F Evans S Smith R Black N . Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial. JAMA 1998;280(3):234–7 doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.234.

Godlee F Gale CR Martyn CN . Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998:280(3):237–40 doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.237.

Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA Rennie D, and the PEER investigators. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998;280(3):240–2 doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.240.

van Rooyen S Godlee F Evans S Black N Smith R . Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: A randomised trial. BMJ 1999;318:23 doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23.

van Rooyen S Godlee F Evans S Smith R Black N . Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. J Gen Internal Med 1999;14(10):622–4 doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.09058.x.

Alam M Kim NA Havey J Rademaker A Ratner D Tregre B . Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: A randomized multi-rater study. Br J Dermatol 2011;165(3):563–7 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10432.x.

Vinther S Nielsen OH Rosenberg J Keidling N Schroeder TV . Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in “Ugeskrift for Læger”. Dan Med J 2012;59(8):1–5.

Walsh E Rooney M Appleby L Wilkinson G . Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2000;176(1):47–51 doi: 10.1192/bjp.176.1.47.

Comer DB Schwartz M . The problem of humiliation in peer review. Ethics Educ 2014;9(2):141–56 doi: 10.1080/17449642.2014.913341.

Manchikanti L Kaye AD Boswell M Hirsch JA . Medical journal peer review: Process and bias. Pain Physician 2015;18(1):E1–14.

Snodgrass RT . Single- versus double-blind reviewing: An analysis of the literature. SIGMOD Rec 2006;35(3):8–21.

Cho MK Justice AC Winker MA Berlin JA Waeckerle JF Callaham ML . Masking author identity in peer review: What factors influence masking success? JAMA 1998;280(3):243–5 doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.243.

Katz DS Proto AV Olmsted WW . Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: Our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies. Am J Roentgenol 2002;179(6):1415–7 doi: 10.2214/ajr.179.6.1791415.

Hill S Provost F . The myth of the double blind review? Author identifications using only citations. ACM SIGKDD Explor Newslett 2003;5(2):179–84 doi: 10.1145/980972.981001.

Laband DN Piette MJ . A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. JAMA 1994;272(2):147–9 doi: 10.1001/jama.1994.03520020073020.

Baggs JG Broome ME Dougherty MC Freda MC Kearney MH . Blinding in peer review: The preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. J Adv Nurs 2008;64(2):131–8 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04816.x.

van Rooyen S Delamothe T Evans SJW . Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2010;341:c5729 doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5729.

McCormack N . Peer review and legal publishing: What law librarians need to know about open, single-blind and double-blind reviewing. Law Lib J 2009;101(1):59–70.

Tipton CM . Medicine and science in sports and exercise–1984. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1984;16:viii.

Darling ES . Use of double-blind peer review to increase author diversity. Conserv Biol 2014; doi: 10.1111/cobi.12333.

Lotfi B Mahian O . Why double-blind review is preferable for scholarly journals. J Korean Med Sci 2014;29(10):1438. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2014.29.10.1438.

Suen C . Double blinding in peer review: Is it worth the hype? Univ Ottawa J Med 2014;4(1):11–2.

Kearney MH Freda MC . Nurse editors' views on the peer review process. Res Nurs Health 2005;28(6):444–52 doi: 10.1002/nur.20104.

Regehr G Bordage G . To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer. Med Educ 2006;40(9):832–9 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02539.x.

Moylan E Harold S O'Neill C Kowalczuk MK . Open, single-blind, double-blind: Which peer review process do you prefer? BMC Pharmacol Toxicol 2014;15:55 doi: 10.1186/2050-6511-15-55.

Jagsi R Bennett KE Griffith KA DeCastro R Grace C Holliday E . Attitudes toward blinding of peer review and perceptions of efficacy within a small biomedical specialty. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014;89(5):940–6 doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.04.021.

Godlee F . Making reviewers visible: Openness, accountability and credit. JAMA 2002;287(1):2762–5 doi: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2762.

Turner L . Doffing the mask: Why manuscript reviewers ought to be identifiable. J Acad Ethics 2003;1(1):41–8 doi: 10.1023/A:1025454331738.

Garvalov BK . Who stands to win from double-blind peer review? Adv Regen Biol 2015;2:26879 doi: 10.3402/arb.v2.26879.

Schroter S Tite L Hutchings A Black N . Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA 2006;295(3):314–7 doi: 10.1001/jama.295.3.314.

Wager E Parkin EC Tamber PS . Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study BMC Med 2006;4:13 doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-4-13.

Patel J . Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: A case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials. BMC Med 2014;12:128 doi: 10.1186/s12916-014-0128-z.

Stahel PF Moore EE . Peer review for biomedical publications: We can improve the system. BMC Med 2014;12:179 doi: 10.1186/s12916-014-0179-1.