Vinther S, Nielsen OH, Rosenberg J, et al. Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Laeger". Danish Medical Journal 2012;59(8):A4479
The aim of this study was to compare the quality of reviews produced by identifiable and anonymous reviewers working for the Journal of the Danish Medical Association (Ugeskrift for Laeger-Ufl), and to characterize authors' and reviewers' attitudes towards different peer review systems (open, single-blinded and double-blinded). Results showed the same quality in reviews, but many reviewers and authors preferred anonymity and, thus, a a blinded peer review. The lack of anonymity might cause reviewers, already limited in number in a national journal like Ufl, to decline when asked for reviews.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22849979
The aim of this study was to compare the quality of reviews produced by identifiable and anonymous reviewers working for the Journal of the Danish Medical Association (Ugeskrift for Laeger-Ufl), and to characterize authors' and reviewers' attitudes towards different peer review systems (open, single-blinded and double-blinded). Results showed the same quality in reviews, but many reviewers and authors preferred anonymity and, thus, a a blinded peer review. The lack of anonymity might cause reviewers, already limited in number in a national journal like Ufl, to decline when asked for reviews.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22849979
Comments