Literature DB >> 10789326

Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial.

E Walsh1, M Rooney, L Appleby, G Wilkinson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Most scientific journals practise anonymous peer review. There is no evidence, however, that this is any better than an open system. AIMS: To evaluate the feasibility of an open peer review system.
METHOD: Reviewers for the British Journal of Psychiatry were asked whether they would agree to have their name revealed to the authors whose papers they review; 408 manuscripts assigned to reviewers who agreed were randomised to signed or unsigned groups. We measured review quality, tone, recommendation for publication and time taken to complete each review.
RESULTS: A total of 245 reviewers (76%) agreed to sign. Signed reviews were of higher quality, were more courteous and took longer to complete than unsigned reviews. Reviewers who signed were more likely to recommend publication.
CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the feasibility of an open peer review system and identifies such a system's potential drawbacks.

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10789326     DOI: 10.1192/bjp.176.1.47

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Psychiatry        ISSN: 0007-1250            Impact factor:   9.319


  41 in total

1.  Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Sara Schroter; Nick Black; Stephen Evans; James Carpenter; Fiona Godlee; Richard Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-03-02

2.  Jornal de Pneumologia 1995-1998.

Authors:  Carlos Alberto de Castro Pereira
Journal:  J Bras Pneumol       Date:  2015 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.624

3.  What makes the best medical ethics journal? A North American perspective.

Authors:  J Savulescu; A M Viens
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 2.903

4.  Understanding the peer review process.

Authors:  Robert J S Thomas
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  The ethics of peer review in bioethics.

Authors:  David Wendler; Franklin Miller
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2013-10-16       Impact factor: 2.903

6.  A new editor-in-chief for Nicotine & Tobacco Research.

Authors:  Marcus Munafò
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.244

7.  Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.

Authors:  David B Resnik; Susan A Elmore
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2015-01-30       Impact factor: 3.525

8.  Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal.

Authors:  E E O'Connor; M Cousar; J A Lentini; M Castillo; K Halm; T A Zeffiro
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2016-11-17       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 9.  A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.

Authors:  Jonathan P Tennant; Jonathan M Dugan; Daniel Graziotin; Damien C Jacques; François Waldner; Daniel Mietchen; Yehia Elkhatib; Lauren B Collister; Christina K Pikas; Tom Crick; Paola Masuzzo; Anthony Caravaggi; Devin R Berg; Kyle E Niemeyer; Tony Ross-Hellauer; Sara Mannheimer; Lillian Rigling; Daniel S Katz; Bastian Greshake Tzovaras; Josmel Pacheco-Mendoza; Nazeefa Fatima; Marta Poblet; Marios Isaakidis; Dasapta Erwin Irawan; Sébastien Renaut; Christopher R Madan; Lisa Matthias; Jesper Nørgaard Kjær; Daniel Paul O'Donnell; Cameron Neylon; Sarah Kearns; Manojkumar Selvaraju; Julien Colomb
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2017-07-20

10.  The good, the bad and the rude peer-review.

Authors:  Andreas F Mavrogenis; Andrew Quaile; Marius M Scarlat
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.