THE EFFECT ON THE QUALITY OF PEER REVIEW OF BLINDING REVIEWERS AND ASKING THEM TO SIGN THEIR REPORTS: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Fiona Godlee, Catharine R Gale,
and Christopher N Martyn
BMJ, BMA House, Tavistock Sq, London, WC1H 9JR, UK: MRC Environmental Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
Objective: To evaluate the effect on the quality of peer review of (1) blinding reviewers to the identity and affiliations of the authors and
(2) requiring reviewers to sign their reports.
Design: With the permission of the authors, we modified a scientific paper accepted for publication by a weekly medical journal introducing 8 areas of weakness.
The modified paper was sent to 420 potential reviewers selected from the same journal's database. Using a factorial design, reviewers were randomly allocated to 5 groups.
Groups 1 and 2 received manuscripts from which the authors' names and affiliations had been removed, while groups 3 and 4 were aware of the authors' identities. Groups 1 and 3
were asked to sign their reports, while groups 2 and 4 were asked to return their reports unsigned. Group 5 was sent the paper in the usual manner of the journal, with authors'
identities revealed and a request to comment anonymously. Group 5 differed from group 4 only in that they were unaware that they were taking part in a study. The main outcome
measure was the number of weaknesses in the paper that were commented on by the reviewers.
Results: Reports were received from 221 reviewers; a response rate of 53%. Respondents did not differ significantly between the groups. The median number of weaknesses
commented on was 2 (range, 0 to 5). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in their performance.
Conclusions: In the context of a general medical journal, neither blinding reviewers to the authors and origin of the paper nor requiring them to sign their reports seems
likely to have a strong influence on the quality of peer review.
Return to Session Information
