Laband D N, Piette M J
Department of Economics and Finance, Salisbury State University, Md.
JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):147-9.
To determine whether articles published in journals using blinded peer review receive significantly more or fewer citations than those published in journals using nonblinded peer review.
Drawing from a sample of 1051 full articles published in 28 economics journals during 1984, we used nonlinear regression and ordered probit techniques to estimate the impact of blinded peer review on citations of these articles in 1985 through 1989.
Citations of articles.
Articles published in journals using blinded peer review were cited significantly more than articles published in journals using nonblinded peer review, controlling for a variety of author, article, and journal attributes.
Nonblinded peer review apparently suffers from type I error to a greater extent than blinded peer review. That is, journals using nonblinded peer review published a larger fraction of papers that should not have been published than do journals using blinded peer review. When reviewers know the identity of the author(s) of an article, they are able to (and evidently do) substitute particularistic criteria for universalistic criteria in their evaluative process.
确定采用盲审同行评议的期刊上发表的文章，其被引用次数显著多于还是少于采用非盲审同行评议的期刊上发表的文章。
从1984年发表在28种经济学期刊上的1051篇完整文章样本中选取数据，我们使用非线性回归和有序概率单位技术来估计盲审同行评议对这些文章在1985年至1989年期间被引用次数的影响。
文章被引用次数。
在控制了各种作者、文章和期刊属性后，采用盲审同行评议的期刊上发表的文章被引用次数显著多于采用非盲审同行评议的期刊上发表的文章。
非盲审同行评议显然比盲审同行评议更容易出现I类错误。也就是说，与采用盲审同行评议的期刊相比，采用非盲审同行评议的期刊发表了更大比例本不应发表的论文。当审稿人知道文章作者的身份时，他们能够（显然也确实会）在评估过程中用特殊标准取代普遍标准。
