S. Van Rooyen et al., Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial, BR MED J, 318(7175), 1999, pp. 23-27
Citations number
11
Categorie Soggetti
General & Internal Medicine","Medical Research General Topics
Objectives To examine the effect on peer review of asking reviewers to have
their identity revealed to the authors of the paper.
Design Randomised trial. Consecutive eligible papers were sent to two revie
wers who were randomised to have their identity revealed to the authors or
to remain anonymous. Editors and authors were blind to the intervention.
Main outcome measures The quality of the reviews was independently rated by
two editors and the corresponding author using a validated instrument Addi
tional outcomes were the time taken to complete the review and the recommen
dation regarding publication. A questionnaire survey was undertaken of the
authors of a cohort of manuscripts submitted for publication to find out th
eir views on open peer review.
Results Two editors' assessments were obtained for 113 out of 125 manuscrip
ts, and the corresponding author's assessment was obtained for 105. Reviewe
rs randomised to be asked to be identified were 12% (95% confidence interva
l 0.2% to 24%) more likely to decline to review than reviewers randomised t
o remain anonymous (35% v 23%). There was no significant difference in qual
ity (scored on a scale of 1 to 5) between anonymous reviewers (3.06 (SD 0.7
2)) and identified reviewers (3.09 (0.68)) (P = 0.68, 95% confidence interv
al for difference -0.19 to 0.12), and no significant difference in the reco
mmendation regarding publication or time taken to review the paper. The edi
tors' quality score for reviews (3.05 (SD 0.70)) was significantly higher t
han that of authors (2.90 (0.87)) (P < 0.005, 95% confidence interval for d
ifference -0.26 to -0.03). Most authors were in favour of open peer review.
Conclusions Asking reviewers to consent to being identified to the author h
ad no important effect on the quality of the review, the recommendation reg
arding publication, or the time taken to review, but it significantly incre
ased the likelihood of reviewers declining to review.