skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Attitudes Toward Blinding of Peer Review and Perceptions of Efficacy Within a Small Biomedical Specialty

Abstract

Purpose: 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. Methods and Materials: 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. Results: 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 authormore » 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. Conclusions: 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.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [3];  [4];  [2];  [5];  [6]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (United States)
  2. Scientific Publications, American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), Fairfax, Virginia (United States)
  3. Center for Cancer Biostatistics, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan (United States)
  4. Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine and Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (United States)
  5. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (United States)
  6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22420380
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics; Journal Volume: 89; Journal Issue: 5; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2014 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; ATTITUDES; COMMUNITIES; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; RECOMMENDATIONS; REVIEWS

Citation Formats

Jagsi, Reshma, E-mail: rjagsi@med.umich.edu, Bennett, Katherine Egan, Griffith, Kent A., DeCastro, Rochelle, Grace, Calley, Holliday, Emma, and Zietman, Anthony L. Attitudes Toward Blinding of Peer Review and Perceptions of Efficacy Within a Small Biomedical Specialty. United States: N. p., 2014. Web. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2014.04.021.
Jagsi, Reshma, E-mail: rjagsi@med.umich.edu, Bennett, Katherine Egan, Griffith, Kent A., DeCastro, Rochelle, Grace, Calley, Holliday, Emma, & Zietman, Anthony L. Attitudes Toward Blinding of Peer Review and Perceptions of Efficacy Within a Small Biomedical Specialty. United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2014.04.021.
Jagsi, Reshma, E-mail: rjagsi@med.umich.edu, Bennett, Katherine Egan, Griffith, Kent A., DeCastro, Rochelle, Grace, Calley, Holliday, Emma, and Zietman, Anthony L. Fri . "Attitudes Toward Blinding of Peer Review and Perceptions of Efficacy Within a Small Biomedical Specialty". United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2014.04.021.
@article{osti_22420380,
title = {Attitudes Toward Blinding of Peer Review and Perceptions of Efficacy Within a Small Biomedical Specialty},
author = {Jagsi, Reshma, E-mail: rjagsi@med.umich.edu and Bennett, Katherine Egan and Griffith, Kent A. and DeCastro, Rochelle and Grace, Calley and Holliday, Emma and Zietman, Anthony L.},
abstractNote = {Purpose: 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. Methods and Materials: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.},
doi = {10.1016/J.IJROBP.2014.04.021},
journal = {International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics},
number = 5,
volume = 89,
place = {United States},
year = {Fri Aug 01 00:00:00 EDT 2014},
month = {Fri Aug 01 00:00:00 EDT 2014}
}
  • Transportation improvement policy should concentrate investment in transit operations consistent with consumer concerns. Responses to travel time, reliability, convenience, comfort, safety, cost, and service factors were surveyed to ascertain traveler attitudes. The survey concludes that changes made should improve reliability, reduce out-of-vehicle time, and in-vehicle standing. More riders can be attracted by raising auto and parking fees than by lowering transit fees and by establishing express lanes. Bias against mass transit operations are often irrationally linked to individual experiences and difficult to assess, but progressive improvement of service correlates with increased favorable response. (25 references) (DCK)
  • Small system water suppliers in the State of Michigan were surveyed to determine the influence of an educational fact sheet on their attitudes toward the lead and copper rule. A pre-test/post-test questionnaire and information sheet about the lead and copper rule were mailed to each supplier. A paired t-test, test-retest correlation, and McNemar Chi Square were utilized to analyze the data. There was a 26 percent return rate. Results indicated that educating water suppliers about the purpose of and the expected benefits from the implementation of this rule can be beneficial not only by informing them but also by promotingmore » a positive view toward this regulatory requirement.« less
  • No public policy issue has been as difficult as high-level nuclear waste. Debates continue regarding Yucca Mountain as a disposal site, and - more generally - the appropriateness of geologic disposal and the need to act quickly. Previous research has focused on possible social, political, and economic consequences of a facility in Nevada. Impacts have been predicted to be potentially large and to emanate mainly from stigmatization of the region due to increased perceptions of risk. Analogous impacts from leaving waste at power plants have been either ignored or assumed to be negligible. This paper presents survey results on attitudesmore » of residents in three countries where nuclear waste is currently stored. Topics include perceived risk, knowledge of nuclear waste and radiation, and impacts on jobs, tourism, and housing values from leaving waste on site. Results are similar to what has been reported for Nevada; the public is concerned about possible adverse effects from on-site storage of waste. 24 refs., 7 figs., 5 tabs.« less
  • In order to assess the impact of the accident at the Three Mile Island (TMI), telephone interviews were conducted six months later with 324 nuclear workers assigned to TMI and 298 workers assigned to a comparison plant at Peach Bottom (PB). Examination of PB-TMI differences, stratified by supervisory status, revealed that: (1) TMI workers reported greater exposure to radiation at the time of the accident and felt that their health had been thereby endangered; (2) TMI workers experienced more uncertainty and conflict at the time of the accident; (3) coping responses such as seeing a doctor, taking drugs, and increasingmore » alcohol consumption were quite infrequent; (4) leaving the area was more common; however, over 40% of TMI workers wished to leave but did not do so because of work obligations; and (5) TMI workers reported much lower job satisfaction and much greater uncertainty about thier job future. 139 references, 8 tables.« less
  • Public opposition to the construction (i.e., siting) of new high voltage overhead transmission lines is not a new or isolated phenomenon. Past research has posited a variety of reasons, applied general theories, and has provided empirical evidence to explain public opposition. The existing literature, while clarifying many elements of the issue, does not yet fully explain the complexities underlying this public opposition phenomenon. As a result, the current study demonstrated how two overlooked factors, people’s sense of political efficacy and their familiarity (i.e., prior exposure) with transmission lines, explained attitudes of support and opposition to siting new power lines.