Dermatoethics pp 221-225 | Cite as

Hiding Behind the Curtain: Anonomyous Versus Open Peer Review

  • Andrea L. Suárez
  • Jeffrey D. Bernhard
  • Robert P. Dellavalle
Chapter

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Kronick DA. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA. 1990;263:1321–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 2011Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schachman HK. From “publish or perish” to “patent and prosper”. J Biol Chem. 2006;281:6889–903.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hagstrom W. The scientific community. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press; 1965.Google Scholar
  5. 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. 6.
    Ghosh P. Stem cell research ‘biased’. BBC Today. Vol England: British Broadcasting Corporation; 2010:4 minutes 45 seconds.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dellavalle RP. Cultivating peer review. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;55:1113–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Instructions to authors, American Journal of Epidemiology. http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/aje/for_authors/general.html. Accessed 11 Mar 2010.
  9. 9.
    Instructions to authors, American Sociological Review. http://www2.asanet.org/journals/asr/submission.html. Accessed 11 Mar 2010.
  10. 10.
    Instructions to authors, Journal of Adolescent Health. http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/505765/authorinstructions. Accessed 11 Mar 2010.
  11. 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. 12.
    Lock S. A difficult balance: editorial peer review in medicine. Philadelphia: ISI Press; 1986. p. 122–3.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Naqvi KR. Double-blind review: the paw print is a giveaway. Nature. 2008;452:28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stigler S. More about the lion and its claw. Nature. 1988;333:592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    O’Hara B. Double-blind review: let diversity reign. Nature. 2008;452:28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Editorial: Working double-blind. Nature. 2008;451:605–6.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ware M, Consulting MW. Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. London: The Publishers Association; 2008.Google Scholar
  19. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Davidoff F. Masking, blinding, and peer review: the blind leading the blinded. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128:66–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rennie D. Freedom and responsibility in medical publication: setting the balance right. JAMA. 1998;280:300–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Walsh E, Rooney M, Appleby L, Wilkinson G. Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2000;176:47–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Godlee F. Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA. 2002;287:2762–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tite L, Schroter S. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007;61:9–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fabiato A. Anonymity of reviewers. Cardiovasc Res. 1994;28:1134–9; discussion 1140–1145.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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. 30.
    Allen R. Bravo, brave BMJ, for the rapid response section. BMJ. 2002;325:223.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    BioMed Central. Dermatology publication and peer review process. http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcdermatol/ifora/%23peerreview. Accessed 13 Mar 2010.
  32. 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. 33.
    Baraniuk RG, and Cervenka K. Connexions White Paper: Building Communities and Sharing Knowledge. Houston, TX: Rice University; 2002.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Burrus C. Connexions: An open educational resources for the 21st century. Educ Technol. 2007;47:19–22.Google Scholar
  35. 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. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Allesina S. Acclerating the pace of discovery by changing the peer review algorithm. CoRR. Chicago: University of Chicago; 2009. p. 9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea L. Suárez
    • 1
  • Jeffrey D. Bernhard
    • 2
  • Robert P. Dellavalle
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Dermatology, School of Medicine, Denver VA Medical CenterUniversity of Colorado DenverAuroraUSA
  2. 2.University of Massachusetts Medical SchoolWorcesterUSA
  3. 3.Department of EpidemiologyColorado School of Public HealthAuroraUSA
  4. 4.Department of Veterans Affairs, Dermatology ServiceEastern Colorado Health Care SystemDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations