logo BDSP

Base documentaire


Votre avis nous intéresse

Le réseau BDSP met en oeuvre un projet d'innovation et d'amélioration de ses services, dans le souci constant de proposer des contenus de qualité adaptés aux besoins des utilisateurs.

Identifier de nouvelles sources de financements est la condition nécessaire pour assurer la poursuite et la pérennité de cet outil unique qu'est la BDSP, tout en le faisant évoluer.

Pour définir un nouveau modèle économique, nous avons besoin de votre avis : merci de répondre à notre enquête (temps estimé : 5 minutes).

Participer maintenant
Participer plus tard J'ai déjà participé

  1. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review : A randomized trial.

    Article, Communication - En anglais

    International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. Prague, CZE, 1997/09.

    Context.

    Little research has been conducted into the quality of peer review and, in particular, the effects of blinding peer reviewers to authors'identities or masking peer reviewers'identities.

    Objective

    To determine whether concealing authors'identities from reviewers (blinding) and/or revealing the reviewer's identity to a coreviewer (unmasking) affects the quality of reviews, the time taken to carry out reviews, and the recommendation regarding publication.

    Design and Setting

    Randomized trial of 527 consecutive manuscripts submitted to BMJ, which were randomized and each sent to 2 peer reviewers.

    Interventions

    - Manuscripts were randomized as to whether the reviewers were unmasked, masked, or uninformed that a study was taking place.

    Two reviewers for each manuscript were randomized to receive either a blinded or an unblinded version.

    Main Outcome Measures

    Mean total quality score, time taken to carry out the review, and recommendation regarding publication.

    Results

    Of the 527 manuscripts entered into the study, 467 (89%) were successfully randomized and followed up.

    The mean total quality score was 2.87.

    There was little or no difference in review quality between the masked and unmasked groups (scores of 2.82 and 2.96, respectively) and between the blinded and unblinded groups (scores of 2.87 and 2.90, respectively).

    There was no apparent Hawthorne effect. (...)

    Mots-clés Pascal : Article, Médecine, Qualité, Sélection, Auteur, Etude comparative, Homme, Littérature scientifique, Revue médicale, Divulgation

    Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Article, Medicine, Quality, Selection, Author, Comparative study, Human, Scientific literature

    Logo du centre Notice produite par :
    Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique

    Cote : 98-0443494

    Code Inist : 002B30A09. Création : 25/01/1999.