View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer.
Authors: Regehr, Glenn (AUTHOR), Bordage, Georges (AUTHOR)
Source: Medical Education. Sep2006, Vol. 40 Issue 9, p832-839. 8p.
Subjects: Medical education, Editorials, Periodicals, Authorship, Professional peer review
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom
Abstract: Objective In order to inform discussions about possible changes to Medical Education's blinding policy, members of the journal's editorial board were interested in discovering reviewers' and authors' preferences with regard to the current double-blind policy and various alternatives. Methods In September 2005, an 8-question, web-based survey was sent to all authors and reviewers who had submitted or reviewed a manuscript for Medical Education in 2003 and 2004 ( n = 2632). The questions asked about authorship and reviewing experiences and preferences regarding 5 types of blinding procedure, from double-blinding to fully unblinded, open reviews. Results Following 2 electronic mailings, 838 surveys were completed. There was a range of experience among respondents, with a high proportion of experienced authors (49% with over 20 publications) and reviewers (41% with over 20 reviews). Overall, 68% of respondents preferred a review process that concealed author names and 72% preferred a process that allowed for concealment of reviewer names. Less experienced authors and reviewers were significantly more likely to prefer concealing author names, but even the most experienced respondents had a 54% preference for author concealment. Reasons for concealing identities included facilitating fairness and honesty in reviews and acknowledging the need to avoid personal conflicts or rivalries. Reasons for revealing identities included facilitating greater transparency and accountability, and a better understanding of the author's and reviewer's contexts and credentials. Conclusions The Medical Education authors and reviewers who chose to respond to the survey voted strongly in favour of continuing the double-blinding procedure of concealing both author and reviewer identities during the review process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Medical Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: pbh
DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
An: 22028548
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Regehr%2C+Glenn%22">Regehr, Glenn</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bordage%2C+Georges%22">Bordage, Georges</searchLink> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Medical+Education%22">Medical Education</searchLink>. Sep2006, Vol. 40 Issue 9, p832-839. 8p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Medical+education%22">Medical education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Editorials%22">Editorials</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Periodicals%22">Periodicals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Authorship%22">Authorship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Professional+peer+review%22">Professional peer review</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectGeographic
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom%22">United Kingdom</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Objective In order to inform discussions about possible changes to Medical Education's blinding policy, members of the journal's editorial board were interested in discovering reviewers' and authors' preferences with regard to the current double-blind policy and various alternatives. Methods In September 2005, an 8-question, web-based survey was sent to all authors and reviewers who had submitted or reviewed a manuscript for Medical Education in 2003 and 2004 ( n = 2632). The questions asked about authorship and reviewing experiences and preferences regarding 5 types of blinding procedure, from double-blinding to fully unblinded, open reviews. Results Following 2 electronic mailings, 838 surveys were completed. There was a range of experience among respondents, with a high proportion of experienced authors (49% with over 20 publications) and reviewers (41% with over 20 reviews). Overall, 68% of respondents preferred a review process that concealed author names and 72% preferred a process that allowed for concealment of reviewer names. Less experienced authors and reviewers were significantly more likely to prefer concealing author names, but even the most experienced respondents had a 54% preference for author concealment. Reasons for concealing identities included facilitating fairness and honesty in reviews and acknowledging the need to avoid personal conflicts or rivalries. Reasons for revealing identities included facilitating greater transparency and accountability, and a better understanding of the author's and reviewer's contexts and credentials. Conclusions The Medical Education authors and reviewers who chose to respond to the survey voted strongly in favour of continuing the double-blinding procedure of concealing both author and reviewer identities during the review process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Medical Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=22028548
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02539.x
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 8
        StartPage: 832
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Medical education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Editorials
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Periodicals
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Authorship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Professional peer review
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Regehr, Glenn
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bordage, Georges
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Text: Sep2006
              Type: published
              Y: 2006
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 03080110
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 40
            – Type: issue
              Value: 9
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Medical Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1