To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer
To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02539.x
复制
发表时间：
2006-09-01
影响因子：
6
通讯作者：
Bordage, Georges
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Regehr, Glenn;Bordage, Georges
目的 为了为有关医学教育双盲政策可能发生的变化的讨论提供信息，该杂志的编辑委员会成员有兴趣了解审稿人和作者对当前双盲政策和各种替代方案的偏好。 方法 2005 年 9 月，向所有在 2003 年和 2004 年提交或审阅医学教育稿件的作者和审稿人（n = 2632）发送了一项包含 8 个问题的网络调查。这些问题询问了关于作者身份以及审查经验和偏好的 5 种盲法程序，从双盲到完全非盲、开放式审查。结果 在 2 封电子邮件之后，完成了 838 项调查。受访者的经验各不相同，其中经验丰富的作者（49% 发表过 20 多篇出版物）和审稿人（41% 发表过 20 多篇评论）比例很高。总体而言，68% 的受访者更喜欢隐藏作者姓名的审稿流程，72% 的受访者更喜欢允许隐藏审稿人姓名的流程。经验不足的作者和审稿人明显更倾向于隐藏作者姓名，但即使是最有经验的受访者也有 54% 的人倾向于隐藏作者姓名。隐藏身份的原因包括促进评论的公平和诚实，以及承认需要避免个人冲突或竞争。披露身份的原因包括促进更大的透明度和问责制，以及更好地了解作者和审稿人的背景和资历。 结论 选择回应调查的医学教育作者和审稿人强烈支持继续在审稿过程中隐藏作者和审稿人身份的双盲程序。
Objective In order to inform discussions about possible changes to Medical Education's blinding policy, members of the journal's editorial board were interested in discovering reviewers' and authors' preferences with regard to the current double-blind policy and various alternatives.Methods In September 2005, an 8-question, web-based survey was sent to all authors and reviewers who had submitted or reviewed a manuscript for Medical Education in 2003 and 2004 (n = 2632). The questions asked about authorship and reviewing experiences and preferences regarding 5 types of blinding procedure, from double-blinding to fully unblinded, open reviews.Results Following 2 electronic mailings, 838 surveys were completed. There was a range of experience among respondents, with a high proportion of experienced authors (49% with over 20 publications) and reviewers (41% with over 20 reviews). Overall, 68% of respondents preferred a review process that concealed author names and 72% preferred a process that allowed for concealment of reviewer names. Less experienced authors and reviewers were significantly more likely to prefer concealing author names, but even the most experienced respondents had a 54% preference for author concealment. Reasons for concealing identities included facilitating fairness and honesty in reviews and acknowledging the need to avoid personal conflicts or rivalries. Reasons for revealing identities included facilitating greater transparency and accountability, and a better understanding of the author's and reviewer's contexts and credentials.Conclusions The Medical Education authors and reviewers who chose to respond to the survey voted strongly in favour of continuing the double-blinding procedure of concealing both author and reviewer identities during the review process.