Blinding in peer review

The preferences of reviewers for nursing journals

Judith Baggs, Marion E. Broome, Molly C. Dougherty, Margaret C. Freda, Margaret H. Kearney

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    43 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Title. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. Aim. This paper is a report of a study to assess the beliefs and preferences of reviewers for nursing journals about blinding of authors to reviewers, reviewers to authors, neither or both. Background. Blinding of author and reviewer names in the manuscript review process has been of interest to nursing editors, but reports that are based on data rather than simply opinion concern the editorial practices of biomedical rather than nursing journals. There has been no study of nursing journal reviewer beliefs and preferences related to blinding. Method. A descriptive web-based survey was conducted. The sample included 1675 anonymous reviewers, recruited through 52 editors of nursing journals from their review panels. Data were collected in 2007. Findings. Double-blinding of reviews was the most common method reported. Ninety per cent of respondents reported that the papers they received to review did not include author names. When author names were blinded, 62% of reviewers could not identify the authors of papers; another 17% could identify authors ≤10% of the time. Double-blinding was the method preferred by 93·6% of reviewers, although some identified some advantages to an unblinded open review process. Conclusion. Nursing journal reviewers are generally very satisfied with double-blinding and believe it contributes to the quality of papers published. Editors or editorial boards interested in a more open review process could consider alternatives such as offering authors and reviewers the option to unblind themselves. Simply announcing that the review process will henceforth be unblinded would probably lead to loss of reviewers.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)131-138
    Number of pages8
    JournalJournal of Advanced Nursing
    Volume64
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Oct 2008

    Fingerprint

    Peer Review
    Nursing
    Names
    Manuscripts

    Keywords

    • Blinding
    • Double-blind method
    • Journals
    • Nursing
    • Peer review
    • Publication bias
    • Survey

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Nursing(all)

    Cite this

    Blinding in peer review : The preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. / Baggs, Judith; Broome, Marion E.; Dougherty, Molly C.; Freda, Margaret C.; Kearney, Margaret H.

    In: Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 64, No. 2, 10.2008, p. 131-138.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Baggs, Judith ; Broome, Marion E. ; Dougherty, Molly C. ; Freda, Margaret C. ; Kearney, Margaret H. / Blinding in peer review : The preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. In: Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2008 ; Vol. 64, No. 2. pp. 131-138.
    @article{2b9cdf809f7c472b86344c9fb5490db8,
    title = "Blinding in peer review: The preferences of reviewers for nursing journals",
    abstract = "Title. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. Aim. This paper is a report of a study to assess the beliefs and preferences of reviewers for nursing journals about blinding of authors to reviewers, reviewers to authors, neither or both. Background. Blinding of author and reviewer names in the manuscript review process has been of interest to nursing editors, but reports that are based on data rather than simply opinion concern the editorial practices of biomedical rather than nursing journals. There has been no study of nursing journal reviewer beliefs and preferences related to blinding. Method. A descriptive web-based survey was conducted. The sample included 1675 anonymous reviewers, recruited through 52 editors of nursing journals from their review panels. Data were collected in 2007. Findings. Double-blinding of reviews was the most common method reported. Ninety per cent of respondents reported that the papers they received to review did not include author names. When author names were blinded, 62{\%} of reviewers could not identify the authors of papers; another 17{\%} could identify authors ≤10{\%} of the time. Double-blinding was the method preferred by 93·6{\%} of reviewers, although some identified some advantages to an unblinded open review process. Conclusion. Nursing journal reviewers are generally very satisfied with double-blinding and believe it contributes to the quality of papers published. Editors or editorial boards interested in a more open review process could consider alternatives such as offering authors and reviewers the option to unblind themselves. Simply announcing that the review process will henceforth be unblinded would probably lead to loss of reviewers.",
    keywords = "Blinding, Double-blind method, Journals, Nursing, Peer review, Publication bias, Survey",
    author = "Judith Baggs and Broome, {Marion E.} and Dougherty, {Molly C.} and Freda, {Margaret C.} and Kearney, {Margaret H.}",
    year = "2008",
    month = "10",
    doi = "10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04816.x",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "64",
    pages = "131--138",
    journal = "Journal of Advanced Nursing",
    issn = "0309-2402",
    publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
    number = "2",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Blinding in peer review

    T2 - The preferences of reviewers for nursing journals

    AU - Baggs, Judith

    AU - Broome, Marion E.

    AU - Dougherty, Molly C.

    AU - Freda, Margaret C.

    AU - Kearney, Margaret H.

    PY - 2008/10

    Y1 - 2008/10

    N2 - Title. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. Aim. This paper is a report of a study to assess the beliefs and preferences of reviewers for nursing journals about blinding of authors to reviewers, reviewers to authors, neither or both. Background. Blinding of author and reviewer names in the manuscript review process has been of interest to nursing editors, but reports that are based on data rather than simply opinion concern the editorial practices of biomedical rather than nursing journals. There has been no study of nursing journal reviewer beliefs and preferences related to blinding. Method. A descriptive web-based survey was conducted. The sample included 1675 anonymous reviewers, recruited through 52 editors of nursing journals from their review panels. Data were collected in 2007. Findings. Double-blinding of reviews was the most common method reported. Ninety per cent of respondents reported that the papers they received to review did not include author names. When author names were blinded, 62% of reviewers could not identify the authors of papers; another 17% could identify authors ≤10% of the time. Double-blinding was the method preferred by 93·6% of reviewers, although some identified some advantages to an unblinded open review process. Conclusion. Nursing journal reviewers are generally very satisfied with double-blinding and believe it contributes to the quality of papers published. Editors or editorial boards interested in a more open review process could consider alternatives such as offering authors and reviewers the option to unblind themselves. Simply announcing that the review process will henceforth be unblinded would probably lead to loss of reviewers.

    AB - Title. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. Aim. This paper is a report of a study to assess the beliefs and preferences of reviewers for nursing journals about blinding of authors to reviewers, reviewers to authors, neither or both. Background. Blinding of author and reviewer names in the manuscript review process has been of interest to nursing editors, but reports that are based on data rather than simply opinion concern the editorial practices of biomedical rather than nursing journals. There has been no study of nursing journal reviewer beliefs and preferences related to blinding. Method. A descriptive web-based survey was conducted. The sample included 1675 anonymous reviewers, recruited through 52 editors of nursing journals from their review panels. Data were collected in 2007. Findings. Double-blinding of reviews was the most common method reported. Ninety per cent of respondents reported that the papers they received to review did not include author names. When author names were blinded, 62% of reviewers could not identify the authors of papers; another 17% could identify authors ≤10% of the time. Double-blinding was the method preferred by 93·6% of reviewers, although some identified some advantages to an unblinded open review process. Conclusion. Nursing journal reviewers are generally very satisfied with double-blinding and believe it contributes to the quality of papers published. Editors or editorial boards interested in a more open review process could consider alternatives such as offering authors and reviewers the option to unblind themselves. Simply announcing that the review process will henceforth be unblinded would probably lead to loss of reviewers.

    KW - Blinding

    KW - Double-blind method

    KW - Journals

    KW - Nursing

    KW - Peer review

    KW - Publication bias

    KW - Survey

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=54749121390&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=54749121390&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04816.x

    DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04816.x

    M3 - Article

    VL - 64

    SP - 131

    EP - 138

    JO - Journal of Advanced Nursing

    JF - Journal of Advanced Nursing

    SN - 0309-2402

    IS - 2

    ER -