Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Scientific Publications, American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), Fairfax, Virginia.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Aug 1;89(5):940-946. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.04.021. Epub 2014 Jul 8.
Peer reviewers' knowledge of author identity may influence review content, quality, and recommendations. Therefore, the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics ("Red Journal") implemented double-blinded peer review in 2011. Given the relatively small size of the specialty and the high frequency of preliminary abstract presentations, we sought to evaluate attitudes, the efficacy of blinding, and the potential impact on the disposition of submissions.
In May through August 2012, all Red Journal reviewers and 1 author per manuscript completed questionnaires regarding demographics, attitudes, and perceptions of success of blinding. We also evaluated correlates of the outcomes of peer review.
Questionnaires were received from 408 authors and 519 reviewers (100%). The majority of respondents favored double blinding; 6% of authors and 13% of reviewers disagreed that double blinding should continue in the Red Journal. In all, 50% of the reviewers did not suspect the identity of the author of the paper that they reviewed; 19% of reviewers believed that they could identify the author(s), and 31% suspected that they could. Similarly, 23% believed that they knew the institution(s) from which the paper originated, and 34% suspected that they did. Among those who at least suspected author identity, 42% indicated that prior presentations served as a clue, and 57% indicated that literature referenced did so. Of those who at least suspected origin and provided details (n=133), 13% were entirely incorrect. Rejection was more common in 2012 than 2011, and submissions from last authors with higher H-indices (>21) were more likely to survive initial review, without evidence of interactions between submission year and author gender or H-index.
In a relatively small specialty in which preliminary research presentations are common and occur in a limited number of venues, reviewers are often familiar with research findings and suspect author identity even when manuscript review is blinded. Nevertheless, blinding appears to be effective in many cases, and support for continuing blinding was strong.
同行评审员对作者身份的了解可能会影响评审内容、质量和建议。因此，《国际放射肿瘤学、生物学、物理学杂志》（“红皮杂志”）于 2011 年实施了双盲同行评审。鉴于该专业的规模相对较小，以及初步摘要报告的频率较高，我们试图评估态度、盲法的效果，以及对提交物处理的潜在影响。
2012 年 5 月至 8 月，所有红皮杂志评审员和每篇手稿的 1 位作者都完成了关于人口统计学、态度和对盲法成功的看法的问卷。我们还评估了同行评审结果的相关因素。
共收到 408 位作者和 519 位评审员（100%）的问卷。大多数受访者赞成双盲法；6%的作者和 13%的评审员不同意红皮杂志继续使用双盲法。总的来说，50%的评审员没有怀疑他们评审的论文的作者身份；19%的评审员认为他们可以识别作者，而 31%的评审员怀疑他们可以。同样，23%的评审员认为他们知道论文的来源机构，而 34%的评审员怀疑他们知道。在那些至少怀疑作者身份的人中，42%的人表示之前的演讲是一个线索，而 57%的人表示参考文献是一个线索。在那些至少怀疑来源并提供详细信息的人中（n=133），有 13%的人完全错误。2012 年的拒绝率高于 2011 年，且来自最后一位作者 H 指数（>21）较高的投稿更有可能在初始评审中存活下来，而没有提交年份与作者性别或 H 指数之间相互作用的证据。
在一个相对较小的专业领域，初步研究报告很常见，而且只在有限的几个场所进行，评审员通常熟悉研究结果，并怀疑作者身份，即使在稿件评审是盲法的情况下也是如此。然而，在许多情况下，盲法似乎是有效的，而且对继续进行盲法的支持是强烈的。
