ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2017
Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- An overview of the peer review process in biomedical sciences.Australasian psychiatry : bulletin of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists · 2024Review
- Inequities in Academic Publishing: Where Is the Evidence and What Can Be Done?American journal of public health · 2024Article
- Bridging the gap: promoting equity and diversity in global oncology research within Sub-Saharan Africa.BMJ oncology · 2023Article
- Peer review practices by medical imaging journals.Insights into imaging · 2020Article
- Glass Half Full.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2017Article
- Lifting the lid on impact and peer review.Brain and neuroscience advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on byGlass Half Full.2017
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeMany scientific journals use double-blind peer review to minimize potential reviewer bias concerning publication recommendations. However, because neuroradiology is a relatively small subspecialty, this process may be limited by prior knowledge of the authors' work or associated institutions. We sought to investigate the efficacy of reviewer blinding and determine the impact that unblinding may have on manuscript acceptance. MATERIALS AND
methodsFor manuscripts submitted to the
resultsThe response rate for 1079 questionnaires was 98.8%; 12.9% of reviewers knew or suspected that they knew authors, and 15.3% knew or suspected that they knew the associated institutions. Reviewers correctly identified the authors in 90.3% of cases and correctly stated the institutions in 86.8% of cases. Unblinding resulted from self-citation in 34.1% for both authorship and institutions. The acceptance rate when reviewers knew or suspected that they knew the authors was 57/137 (41.6%) and 262/929 (28.2%) when reviewers did not. The acceptance rate when reviewers knew or suspected that they knew the institutions was 60/163 (36.8%) and 259/903 (28.7%) when they did not. The Fisher exact test showed that author (
conclusionsWhile the
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.