The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige
Open accessAbstract
Most medical journals practice single-blind review 1 (authors' identities known to reviewers), but double-blind review (authors' identities masked to reviewers) may improve the quality of reviews. 2 Bias with single-blind review might be greatest in the setting of author or institutional prestige.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Double-anonymizing the peer-review process could also help level the playing field for academics from other marginalized groups, giving them a fairer chance to succeed, which, in turn, would promote diverse points of view in journal output and eventually expand the journal peer-reviewer pool to authors coming from such backgrounds (3–5, 19–23).”
From Nobel and novice: Author prominence affects peer review (2022) · cites this paper as [22]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Double-anonymizing the peer-review process could also help level the playing field for academics from other marginalized groups, giving them a fairer chance to succeed, which, in turn, would promote diverse points of view in journal output and eventually expand the journal peer-reviewer pool to authors coming from such backgrounds (3–5, 19–23).”
From Nobel and novice: Author prominence affects peer review (2022) · cites this paper as [22]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Double-anonymizing the peer-review process could also help level the playing field for academics from other marginalized groups, giving them a fairer chance to succeed, which, in turn, would promote diverse points of view in journal output and eventually expand the journal peer-reviewer pool to authors coming from such backgrounds (3–5, 19–23).”
From Nobel and novice: Author prominence affects peer review (2022) · cites this paper as [22]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review
van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S. J. W., Smith, R. W., & Black, N. A. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.234 · Cited by 281
The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial
Mcnutt, R. (1990) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.263.10.1371 · Cited by 271
The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review: A Randomized Trial
McNutt, R. A. (1990) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03440100079012 · Cited by 261
The Effects of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review
Fisher, M. (1994) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03520020069019 · Cited by 164
Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of a peer review
van Rooyen, S. (2013) · doi:10.1186/isrctn83117960 · Cited by 61
Alam, M., Kim, N. A., Havey, J., Rademaker, A., Ratner, D., Tregre, B., West, D. P., & Coleman III, W. P. (2011) · British Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10432.x · Cited by 58
The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review
Fisher, M. (1994) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.272.2.143 · Cited by 25
Peer review in scholarly journals
zz (2009) · Cited by 8
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Snodgrass RT. Single-vs double-blind reviewing. SIGMOD Rec. 2006;35(3):8- 21. https://sigmodrecord.org/publications/sigmodRecord/0609/p08-article -snodgrass.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2016.
- McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. JAMA. 1990;263(10):1371-1376.
- Alam M, Kim NA, Havey J, et al. Blinded vs unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal. Br J Dermatol. 2011;165(3): 563-567.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review
Tomkins, A., Zhang, M., & Heavlin, W. D. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1707323114 · Cited by 605
The limitations to our understanding of peer review
Tennant, J. P., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2020) · Research Integrity and Peer Review · doi:10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1 · Cited by 384
A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review
Tennant, J., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., Elkhatib, Y., Collister, L., Pikas, C. K., Crick, T., et al. (2017) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.12037.1 · Cited by 299
Quantifying hierarchy and dynamics in US faculty hiring and retention
Wapman, K. H., Zhang, S., Clauset, A. J., & Larremore, D. B. (2022) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05222-x · Cited by 287
Responsible Conduct of Research
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2022) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197547090.001.0001 · Cited by 224
Metadata
- Authors
- Okike, K., Hug, K. T., Kocher, M. S., & Leopold, S. S.
- Affiliations
- Kaiser Permanente Moanalua Medical Center (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- Boston Children's Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Okike, Kanu
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2016-09-27
- Volume
- 316
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1315
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2527516663
- Cited by
- 192
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 62.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- JAMA (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- single-blind review, double-blind review, reviewer bias, peer review quality, medical journals, author identity disclosure
- MeSH terms
- Authorship, Double-Blind Method, Organizational Affiliation, Single-Blind Method, Peer Review, Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
