Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hiding Behind the Curtain: Anonomyous Versus Open Peer Review

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Dermatoethics

Abstract

For more than 50 years peer review has guided the decision-making process of editors regarding the merit of publishing scientific work. Peer reviews can be influenced by knowledge of the authors’ identities as well as anonymity of the referee. The value of the current peer review system apparently offsets areas of dissatisfaction that include: (a) reviewer bias as a result of knowing author identity, (b) unequal valuation of reviewer versus author anonymity, (c) resource expense for authors, reviewers, editors, and journals, and (d) inhibition of free communication. This chapter discusses the merits of hiding reviewer and author identity in the peer review process as well as the increasing importance of post publication review.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Kronick DA. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA. 1990;263:1321–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rennie D. Editorial peer review: its development and rationale. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, editors. Peer review in health sciences. London: BMJ Books; 2003. http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/pdfs/rennie.pdf Accessed 6 Nov 2011

    Google Scholar 

  3. Schachman HK. From “publish or perish” to “patent and prosper”. J Biol Chem. 2006;281:6889–903.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hagstrom W. The scientific community. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press; 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kemp E, Smith A, Buckingham M, et al. Open letter to senior editors of peer-review journals publishing in the field of stem cell biology. Euro Stem Cell. 2009;305:221–4.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ghosh P. Stem cell research ‘biased’. BBC Today. Vol England: British Broadcasting Corporation; 2010:4 minutes 45 seconds.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dellavalle RP. Cultivating peer review. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;55:1113–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Instructions to authors, American Journal of Epidemiology. http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/aje/for_authors/general.html. Accessed 11 Mar 2010.

  9. Instructions to authors, American Sociological Review. http://www2.asanet.org/journals/asr/submission.html. Accessed 11 Mar 2010.

  10. Instructions to authors, Journal of Adolescent Health. http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/505765/authorinstructions. Accessed 11 Mar 2010.

  11. Ware M. Peer review in scholarly journals: perspective of the scholarly community – an international study. Bristol: Publishing Research Consortium; 2008. p. 32. Available on Google Scholar http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Peer+review+in+scholarly+journals:+perspective+of+the+scholarly+community+–+an+international+study.&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart. Accessed 6 Nov 2011.

  12. Lock S. A difficult balance: editorial peer review in medicine. Philadelphia: ISI Press; 1986. p. 122–3.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Naqvi KR. Double-blind review: the paw print is a giveaway. Nature. 2008;452:28.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Stigler S. More about the lion and its claw. Nature. 1988;333:592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cho MK, Justice AC, Winker MA, et al. Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators. JAMA. 1998;280:243–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. O’Hara B. Double-blind review: let diversity reign. Nature. 2008;452:28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Editorial: Working double-blind. Nature. 2008;451:605–6.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ware M, Consulting MW. Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. London: The Publishers Association; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;280:237–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1998;280:234–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators. JAMA. 1998;280:240–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Davidoff F. Masking, blinding, and peer review: the blind leading the blinded. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128:66–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Rennie D. Freedom and responsibility in medical publication: setting the balance right. JAMA. 1998;280:300–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. JAMA. 1990;263:1371–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Walsh E, Rooney M, Appleby L, Wilkinson G. Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2000;176:47–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Godlee F. Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA. 2002;287:2762–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tite L, Schroter S. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007;61:9–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Fabiato A. Anonymity of reviewers. Cardiovasc Res. 1994;28:1134–9; discussion 1140–1145.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008:39.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Allen R. Bravo, brave BMJ, for the rapid response section. BMJ. 2002;325:223.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. BioMed Central. Dermatology publication and peer review process. http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcdermatol/ifora/%23peerreview. Accessed 13 Mar 2010.

  32. Baraniuk R. Challenges and opportunities for the open educaiton movement: a Connexions case study. In: Iiyoshi T, Kumar MSV, editors. Opening up education – the collective advancement of education through open technology, open content, and open knowledge. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Baraniuk RG, and Cervenka K. Connexions White Paper: Building Communities and Sharing Knowledge. Houston, TX: Rice University; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Burrus C. Connexions: An open educational resources for the 21st century. Educ Technol. 2007;47:19–22.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Atkins DE, Brown JS, Hammond AL. A review of the open educational resources (OER) movement: achievments, challenges, and new opportunities. Report to The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Giving knowledge for free: the emergence of open educational resources. http://www.213.253.134.43/oecd/pdfs/browseit/9607041E.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2010.

  37. Kelty C, Burrus C, Barniuk R. Peer review anew: three principles and a case study in postpublication quality assurance. Proc IEEE. 2008;96:1000–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Harnad S, Brody T, Vallieres F, et al. The access/impact problem and the green and gold roads to open access. Serials Rev. 2004;30:310–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Allesina S. Acclerating the pace of discovery by changing the peer review algorithm. CoRR. Chicago: University of Chicago; 2009. p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

 

Funding: None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dermatology, School of Medicine, Denver VA Medical Center, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO, USA

    Andrea L. Suárez & Robert P. Dellavalle

  2. University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA

    Jeffrey D. Bernhard

  3. Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, CO, USA

    Robert P. Dellavalle

  4. Department of Veterans Affairs, Dermatology Service, Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver, CO, USA

    Robert P. Dellavalle

Authors
  1. Andrea L. Suárez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey D. Bernhard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert P. Dellavalle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert P. Dellavalle .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Brown University, Providence, 02912, Rhode Island, USA

    Lionel Bercovitch

  2. Brown University, Providence, 02912, Rhode Island, USA

    Clifford Perlis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Suárez, A.L., Bernhard, J.D., Dellavalle, R.P. (2012). Hiding Behind the Curtain: Anonomyous Versus Open Peer Review. In: Bercovitch, L., Perlis, C. (eds) Dermatoethics. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2191-6_36

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2191-6_36

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-2190-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-2191-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation