Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals
Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04816.x
复制
发表时间：
2008-10-01
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Kearney, Margaret H.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Baggs, Judith Gedney;Broome, Marion E.;Kearney, Margaret H.
瞄准本文是一项研究的报告，评估的信念和偏好的护理期刊的审稿人对作者的盲法，审稿人对作者，或两者兼而有之。背景。在手稿审查过程中，作者和审稿人姓名的盲法一直受到护理编辑的关注，但基于数据而不是简单的意见的报告涉及生物医学而不是护理期刊的编辑实践。目前还没有研究护理期刊审稿人的信念和偏好与盲目。进行了描述性网络调查。样本包括1675名匿名评审员，通过52名护理期刊编辑从他们的评审小组中招募。数据收集于2007年。双盲审查是报告的最常见方法。90%的答复者报告说，他们收到的供审查的论文没有包括作者姓名。当作者姓名被设盲时，62%的评审员无法识别论文的作者;另外17%的评审员可以识别作者
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