O'Connor E E, Cousar M, Lentini J A, Castillo M, Halm K, Zeffiro T A
From the Department of Radiology (E.E.O., M.C., J.A.L.), Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
From the Department of Radiology (E.E.O., M.C., J.A.L.), Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017 Feb;38(2):230-235. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A5017. Epub 2016 Nov 17.
Many 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.
For manuscripts submitted to the () from January through June 2015, reviewers completed a brief anonymous questionnaire after submitting their evaluations, assessing whether they were familiar with the research or had knowledge of the authors or institutions from which the work originated.
The 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 ( < .038) and institution ( < .039) familiarity was associated with greater manuscript acceptance.
While the process of double-blind peer review minimizes reviewer bias, perceived knowledge of the author and institution is associated with a higher rate of manuscript acceptance.
许多科学期刊采用双盲同行评审，以尽量减少评审人员在发表建议方面的潜在偏见。然而，由于神经放射学是一个相对较小的亚专业，这一过程可能会受到对作者工作或相关机构的先验知识的限制。我们试图研究评审人员盲审的有效性，并确定解除盲审可能对稿件接受产生的影响。
对于2015年1月至6月提交给（）的稿件，评审人员在提交评估后完成一份简短的匿名问卷，评估他们是否熟悉该研究，或是否了解作者或研究工作的来源机构。
1079份问卷的回复率为98.8%；12.9%的评审人员知道或怀疑自己认识作者，15.3%的评审人员知道或怀疑自己认识相关机构。评审人员在90.3%的情况下正确识别了作者，在86.8%的情况下正确说出了机构。因自我引用导致解除盲审的情况，作者身份和机构方面均为34.1%。当评审人员知道或怀疑自己认识作者时，接受率为57/137（41.6%），当评审人员不知道时为262/929（28.2%）。当评审人员知道或怀疑自己认识机构时，接受率为60/163（36.8%），当他们不知道时为259/903（28.7%）。Fisher精确检验表明，对作者（<.038）和机构（<.039）的熟悉程度与稿件接受率较高相关。
虽然双盲同行评审过程可尽量减少评审人员的偏见，但对作者和机构的已知认知与较高的稿件接受率相关。
