Thirty-two submissions to the Journal were rated by paired ‘blind’ and ‘non-blind’ assessors. The former were requested to identify the authors and their affiliation. For only a minority of the submissions could the assessors identify authorship details. Comparison of ratings made by the assessors established that awareness of the author is not associated with a bias in judging and rating Journal submissions.
References
1.
AdairR. K. (1982), A physics’ editor comments on Peters and Ceci's peer-review study, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences5, 196.
2.
LockS. (1982), Peer review weighed in the balance, British Medical Journal282, 1224–6.
3.
ParkerG.BarnettB.HolmesS.ManicavasagarV. (1984), Publishing in the parish, Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry18, 78–85.
4.
PetersD. P.CeciS. J. (1982a), Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles, submitted again, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences5, 187–95.
5.
PetersD. P.CeciS. J. (1982b), Peer-review research: objections and obligations, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences5, 246–52.
