HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Katz, D. S. Articles by Olmsted, W. W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Katz, D. S. Articles by Olmsted, W. W. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

Incidence and Nature of Unblinding by Authors: Our Experience at Two Radiology Journals with Double-Blinded Peer Review Policies

¹ Department of Radiology, 259 First St., Winthrop-University Hospital, Mineola, NY 11501.
² Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794.
³ Editorial Office, Radiology, 1001 E. Broad St., Ste. 310, Richmond, VA 23219.
⁴ Editorial Office, RadioGraphics, 4520 East-West Hwy., Ste. 630, Bethesda, MD 20814.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to prospectively determine the incidence and nature of unblinding by authors as to their identities or institutions in their submission of original major manuscripts to two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The editors of two radiology journals reviewed 880 major original manuscripts submitted to their journals during a 6-month period without knowledge of the identities and institutions of the authors. Each manuscript was inventoried for possible author or institutional unblinding and for the specific types of unblinding violations.

RESULTS. Of 880 manuscripts, 300 (34%) contained information that potentially unblinded the identities of the authors, their institutions, or both. The editors correctly identified the authors or institutions in 221 (74%) of the 300 manuscripts, which represented 25% of the total manuscripts. The most frequent unblinding violations were statement of the authors' initials within the manuscript, referencing work "in press," identifying references as the authors' previous work, and revealing the identity of the institution in the figures.

CONCLUSION. Despite explicit instructions to authors, 34% of 880 prospectively evaluated manuscripts submitted to two radiology journals contained information that potentially or definitely unblinded the identities of the authors or their institutions.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. S. Liebeskind, D. S. Katz, A. V. Proto, and W. W. Olmsted The Fallacy of Double-Blinded Peer Review Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2003; 181 (5): 1422 - 1423. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. S. Katz, H.-J. Wagner, S. Grampp, T. T. Miller, D. P. Frush, W. C. G. Peh, and K. Applegate The RSNA Editorial Fellowship: Editorial Fellows' Perspective Radiology, February 1, 2003; 226(2): 309 - 311. [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. F. Rogers Manuscripts: To Blind, or Not To Blind, That Is the Question Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2002; 179(6): 1373 - 1373. [Full Text] [PDF]