Healthy Skepticism Library item: 12686

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: Journal Article

Kmietowicz Z.
Double blind peer reviews are fairer and more objective, say academics
BMJ 2008 Feb 2; 336:(7638):238
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/336/7638/241?etoc

Abstract:

A large survey of academics from around the world has found strong support for the double blind system of peer review of research papers, where the reviewers and authors are unaware of each other’s identity.

The survey, which resulted in 3040 responses to a questionnaire sent to more than 40 000 authors and editors (a response rate of 7.7%), found that 71% of respondents rated double blind reviewing as effective. In comparison, 52% rated single blind review, where only the reviewer is anonymous, as effective; and 37% considered post-publication review effective, in which anyone can review and rate a paper once it has been peer reviewed and published.

Open review, where the author and reviewer know each other’s name, was the least popular method of peer review, with just 26% of respondents rating it as effective.

The survey respondents overwhelmingly favoured the double blind system of review because they said . .