rss
Br J Ophthalmol 2009;93:881-884 doi:10.1136/bjo.2008.151886
  • Global issues

The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer-review process of an ophthalmic journal

  1. S J Isenberg1,2,
  2. E Sanchez2,
  3. K C Zafran3
  1. 1
    Jules Stein Eye Institute at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA
  2. 2
    Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California, USA
  3. 3
    Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California, USA
  1. Dr S J Isenberg, Jules Stein Eye Institute, 100 Stein Plaza, UCLA, Box 957000, Los Angeles, CA 90095-7000, USA; isenberg{at}ucla.edu
  • Accepted 10 January 2009
  • Published Online First 11 February 2009

Abstract

Background/aim: To investigate the effect of masking the author’s identity to peer reviewers on reviewer bias in an ophthalmic subspecialty journal.

Design: A retrospective study of 531 manuscripts, involving 1182 masked reviews, submitted to Journal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus from 2000 to 2005.

Methods: Data were extracted from recommendation forms completed by each referee during review. Investigated variables consisted of reviewer’s knowledge of author identity, recommendation (accept, revise, or reject publishing), eventual manuscript status (published or not), review quality, gender, country, medical practice setting (academic or private) and editorial board status.

Results: This study involved the largest number of manuscripts ever used to evaluate the importance of author masking. Reviewer’s knowledge of the author’s identity had no effect on review quality. However, proportionally fewer manuscripts were published when there was no idea of the author’s identity, compared with when it was allegedly known or suspected (p<0.0001). Manuscripts had lower recommendation scores when there was no idea of the author’s identity compared with when allegedly known (p = 0.0001) or suspected (p = 0.004).

Conclusion: Reviewers were more favourable when they allegedly knew or suspected the author’s identity. Double-masking may improve the quality of biomedical publishing or at least reduce reviewer bias for effectively masked manuscripts.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF
  4. All Versions of this Article:
    1. bjo.2008.151886v1
    2. 93/7/881 most recent

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Social bookmarking

Register for free content


Free sample
 This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of BJO.
View free sample issue >>

Free archive
The full back archive is now available for BJO. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006, back to volume 1 issue 1.
Register to access the free archive >>

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.