1naresh
Array
(
    [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity] => Array
        (
            [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity
            [type] => guest
            [service-id] => ajnr-ac.highwire.org
            [access-type] => Controlled
            [privilege] => Array
                (
                    [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege] => Array
                        (
                            [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege
                            [type] => privilege-set
                            [privilege-set] => GUEST
                        )

                )

            [credentials] => Array
                (
                    [method] => guest
                )

        )

)
1naresh
Array
(
    [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity] => Array
        (
            [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity
            [type] => guest
            [service-id] => ajnr-ac.highwire.org
            [access-type] => Controlled
            [privilege] => Array
                (
                    [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege] => Array
                        (
                            [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege
                            [type] => privilege-set
                            [privilege-set] => GUEST
                        )

                )

            [credentials] => Array
                (
                    [method] => guest
                )

        )

)
1naresh
Array
(
    [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity] => Array
        (
            [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity
            [type] => guest
            [service-id] => ajnr-ac.highwire.org
            [access-type] => Controlled
            [privilege] => Array
                (
                    [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege] => Array
                        (
                            [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege
                            [type] => privilege-set
                            [privilege-set] => GUEST
                        )

                )

            [credentials] => Array
                (
                    [method] => guest
                )

        )

)
1naresh
Array
(
    [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity] => Array
        (
            [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity
            [type] => guest
            [service-id] => ajnr-ac.highwire.org
            [access-type] => Controlled
            [privilege] => Array
                (
                    [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege] => Array
                        (
                            [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege
                            [type] => privilege-set
                            [privilege-set] => GUEST
                        )

                )

            [credentials] => Array
                (
                    [method] => guest
                )

        )

)
1naresh
Array
(
    [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity] => Array
        (
            [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity
            [type] => guest
            [service-id] => ajnr-ac.highwire.org
            [access-type] => FreeToRead
            [privilege] => Array
                (
                    [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege] => Array
                        (
                            [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege
                            [type] => privilege-set
                            [privilege-set] => GUEST
                        )

                )

            [credentials] => Array
                (
                    [method] => guest
                )

        )

)


  
    




























































































































    Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal | American Journal of Neuroradiology  
    



















    































    
  
  




    
    

  

      


    

      

  
  
  

    

  

    

  

                
    

      

  

    

  
      
  
  

    


Advertisement



  



  


  
  



  



    

  


  


  


  
  
  
  
  
  

  	      


    
      

    
  
    
        
    

  

    
                        

  

                
    

      

	  

		
		

			

			  

  
      
  
  

    

  
  
      
Research Article

  
      

  
      
Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal
  
    	
E.E. O'Connor, M. Cousar, J.A. Lentini, M. Castillo, K. Halm and T.A. Zeffiro

  
    	
American Journal of Neuroradiology February 2017,  38 (2) 230-235; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5017 

  
  
  



  


  
  



			

		

	
	
 	
	  
  

		
		

			

			  

  
      
  
  

    
  


  
  



  
      
  
  

    

  

    

  
      
  
  

    
References
  1. 1.↵
    1. 

    2. Glantz  SA, 
    3. Bero  LA
    . Inappropriate and appropriate selection of ‘peers’ in grant review. JAMA 1994;272:114–16 doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03520020040010 pmid:8015118
    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    1. 

    2. Rowland  F
    . The peer-review process. Learned Publishing. 2002;15:247–58 doi:10.1087/095315102760319206
    CrossRef
  3. 3.↵
    1. 

    2. Weller  AC
    . Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Medford: Information Today, Inc; 2001
  4. 4.↵
    1. 

    2. Choi  M, 
    3. Holliday  EB, 
    4. Jagsi  R, et al
    . Citation-based estimation of scholarly activity among domestic academic radiation oncologists: five-year update. J Radiat Oncol 2014;3:115–22 doi:10.1007/s13566-013-0103-x pmid:24678385
    CrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. 

    2. Jagsi  R, 
    3. Guancial  EA, 
    4. Worobey  CC, et al
    . The “gender gap” in authorship of academic medical literature: a 35-year perspective. N Engl J Med 2006;355:281–87 doi:10.1056/NEJMsa053910 pmid:16855268
    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    1. 

    2. Budden  AE, 
    3. Tregenza  T, 
    4. Aarssen  LW, et al
    . Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol Evol 2008;23:4–6 doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008 pmid:17963996
    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    1. 

    2. Wenneras  C, 
    3. Wold  A
    . Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 1997;387:341–43 doi:10.1038/387341a0 pmid:9163412
    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    1. 

    2. Fisher  M, 
    3. Friedman  SB, 
    4. Strauss  B
    . The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA 1994;272:143–46 doi:10.1001/jama.272.2.143 pmid:8015127
    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    1. 

    2. Ross  JS, 
    3. Gross  CP, 
    4. Desai  MM, et al
    . Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA 2006;295:1675–80 doi:10.1001/jama.295.14.1675 pmid:16609089
    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. 10.↵
    1. 

    2. Link  AM
    . US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA 1998;280:246–47 doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.246 pmid:9676670
    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    1. 

    2. Ernst  E, 
    3. Kienbacher  T
    . Chauvinism. Nature 1991;352:560 doi:10.1038/352560b0 pmid:1865917
    CrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. 

    2. Peters  DP, 
    3. Ceci  SJ
    . Peer-review research: objections and obligations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1982;5:246–55 doi:10.1017/S0140525X00011754
    CrossRef
  13. 13.↵
    1. 

    2. Ware  M
    . Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives. London: Publishing Research Consortium; 2008:4
  14. 14.↵
    1. 

    2. Brown  RJ
    . Double anonymity in peer review within the chemistry periodicals community. Learned Publishing 2007;20:131–27 doi:10.1087/174148507X185108
    CrossRefWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    1. 

    2. Baggs  JG, 
    3. Broome  ME, 
    4. Dougherty  MC, et al
    . Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. J Adv Nurs 2008;64:131–38 doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04816.x pmid:18764847
    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. 16.↵
    1. 

    2. Justice  AC, 
    3. Cho  MK, 
    4. Winker  MA, et al
    . Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998;280:240–42 doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.240 pmid:9676668
    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    1. 

    2. Ceci  SJ, 
    3. Peters  D
    . How blind is blind review? American Psychologist 1984;39:1491 doi:10.1037/0003-066X.39.12.1491
    CrossRefWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    1. 

    2. Yankauer  A
    . How blind is blind review? Am J Public Health 1991;81:843–45 doi:10.2105/AJPH.81.7.843 pmid:2053657
    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. 19.↵
    1. 

    2. Blank  RM
    . The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from the American Economic Review. The American Economic Review 1991;81:1041–67
    Web of Science
  20. 20.↵
    1. 

    2. van Rooyen  S, 
    3. Godlee  F, 
    4. Evans  S, et al
    . Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA 1998;280:234–37 doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.234 pmid:9676666
    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. 21.↵
    1. 

    2. Jagsi  R, 
    3. Bennett  KE, 
    4. Griffith  KA, et al
    . Attitudes toward blinding of peer review and perceptions of efficacy within a small biomedical specialty. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014;89:940–46 doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.04.021 pmid:25035195
    CrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. 

    2. Lee  CJ, 
    3. Sugimoto  CR, 
    4. Zhang  G, et al
    . Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012;64:2–17 doi:10.1002/asi.22784
    CrossRef
  23. 23.↵
    1. 

    2. Ware  M
    . Peer review in scholarly journals: perspective of the scholarly community—results from an international study. Information Services and Use 2008;28:109–12
  24. 24.↵
    1. 

    2. Katz  DS, 
    3. Proto  AV, 
    4. Olmsted  WW
    . Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:1415–17 doi:10.2214/ajr.179.6.1791415 pmid:12438028
    CrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. 

    2. Krinsky  G
    . How to avoid “unblinding” the peer review process. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;172:1474 doi:10.2214/ajr.172.6.10350273 pmid:10350273
    CrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. 

    2. McNutt  RA, 
    3. Evans  AT, 
    4. Fletcher  RH, et al
    . The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA 1990;263:1371–36 doi:10.1001/jama.263.10.1371 pmid:8410407
    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. 27.↵
    1. 

    2. Evans  AT, 
    3. McNutt  RA, 
    4. Fletcher  SW, et al
    . The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med 1993;8:422–28 pmid:8410407
    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. 28.↵
    1. 

    2. Cho  MK, 
    3. Justice  AC, 
    4. Winker  MA, et al
    . Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators. JAMA 1998;280:243–45 doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.243 pmid:9676669
    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. 29.↵
    1. 

    2. Stossel  TP
    . Reviewer status and review quality: experience of the Journal of Clinical Investigation. N Engl J Med 1985;312:658–59 doi:10.1056/NEJM198503073121024 pmid:3974642
    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. 30.↵
    1. 

    2. Black  N, 
    3. van Rooyen  S, 
    4. Godlee  F, et al
    . What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 1998;280:231–33 doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.231 pmid:9676665
    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. 31.↵
    1. 

    2. Nylenna  M, 
    3. Riis  P, 
    4. Karlsson  Y
    . Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts: effects of referee characteristics and publication language. JAMA 1994;272:149–51 doi:10.1001/jama.272.2.149 pmid:8015129
    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. 32.↵
    1. 

    2. Van Rooyen  S, 
    3. Godlee  F, 
    4. Evans  S, et al
    . Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 1999;318:23–27 doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23 pmid:9872878
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. 

    2. Fletcher  RH, 
    3. Fletcher  SW
    . Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics 1997;3:35–50 doi:10.1007/s11948-997-0015-5
    CrossRef
  34. 34.↵
    1. 

    2. Castillo  M
    . Peer review: past, present, and future. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1833–35 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3025 pmid:22403775
    FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. 

    2. Cartlidge  E
    . Peer review steps out of the shadows. Physics World 2007;20:29 doi:10.1088/2058-7058/20/1/32
    CrossRef
  36. 36.↵
    1. 

    2. Walsh  E, 
    3. Rooney  M, 
    4. Appleby  L, et al
    . Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2000;176:47–51 doi:10.1192/bjp.176.1.47 pmid:10789326
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. 

    2. Greaves  S, 
    3. Scott  J, 
    4. Clarke  M, et al
    . Nature's trial of open peer review. Nature 2006. doi:10.1038/nature05535 doi:10.1038/nature05535
    CrossRef
  38. 38.↵
    Pros and cons of open peer review. Nat Neurosci 1999;2:197–98 pmid:10195206
    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  39. 39.↵
    1. 

    2. Berger  E
    . The JAMA and NEJM rulings and their impact on the sanctity of confidential peer review. Ann Emerg Med 2008;51:737–39 doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.04.010
    CrossRef
  


  
  



  




  


  
  



  
      
  
  

    
  


  
  



  
      
  
  

     Back to top  


  
  



			

		

		
		

			

			  

  
        
In this issue

    
  
  

    
  


  
  



  
      
  
  

    

  

    

  
      
  
  

    


Advertisement



  



  


  
  



  



  


  
  



  
      
  
  

    

	  
  

		

          

            

  
      
  
  

     Print  


  
  



  
      
  
  

     Download PDF  


  
  



  
      
  
  

    
 Email Article
  


  
  



  
      
  
  

    
 Citation Tools
  


  
  



          

        

        
        

          

            



  
      
  
  

    

  

    

  
      
  
  

    

  
  
  
  
      
Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal
  
    	
E.E. O'Connor, M. Cousar, J.A. Lentini, M. Castillo, K. Halm, T.A. Zeffiro

  
    	
American Journal of Neuroradiology Feb 2017, 38 (2) 230-235; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A5017 

  
  
  



  


  
  



  
      
  
  

    

  
    
  
  
    
  
  
    
  


  


  
  



  
      
  
  

    
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  


  
  



  



  


  
  



  
      
  
  

    
  


  
  



          

        

	
 	
	
	


  


  
  



  
      
  
  

    
              Purchase  


  
  



  
        
Jump to section

    
  
  

    
  


  
  



  
      
  
  

    

  

    
 Related Articles
  • No related articles found.
 Cited By...
 Similar Articles

  



  


  
  



			

		

	
	
 	
	
	


    

  



  

                
    

      

  

    

  
      
  
  

    


Advertisement