| Title |
Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, December 2001
|
| DOI | 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.09058.x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Susan Van Rooyen, Fiona Godlee, Stephen Evans, Richard Smith, Nick Black |
| Abstract |
The objectives of this study were to see whether, in the opinion of authors, blinding or unmasking or a combination of the two affects the quality of reviews and to compare authors' and editors' assessments. In a trial conducted in the British Medical Journal, 527 consecutive manuscripts were randomized into one of three groups, and each was sent to two reviewers, who were randomized to receive a blinded or an unblinded copy of the manuscript. Review quality was assessed by two editors and the corresponding author. There was no significant difference in assessment between groups or between editors and authors. Reviews recommending publication were scored more highly than those recommending rejection. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 3% |
| Germany | 2 | 2% |
| France | 2 | 2% |
| Mexico | 1 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| Belgium | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 85 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 15% |
| Professor | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 30 | 31% |
| Unknown | 8 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 10% |
| Psychology | 8 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 23 | 24% |
| Unknown | 11 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,655,664
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,939
of 8,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,119
of 131,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#36
of 209 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,173 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 131,414 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 209 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.