| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Psychiatric Bulletin | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment | All RCPsych Journals |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Institute of Psychiatry, London
Maudsley Hospital, London
School of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, University of Manchester
University Department of Psychiatry, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool
Correspondence: Dr Elizabeth Walsh, Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF
Declaration of interest G.W. is the Editor, L.A. an Assistant Editor and E.W. and M.R. Trainee Editors of the British Journal of Psychiatry.
Background Most scientific journals practise anonymous peer review. There is no evidence, however, that this is any better than an open system.
Aims To evaluate the feasibility of an open peer review system.
Method Reviewers for the British Journal of Psychiatry were asked whether they would agree to have their name revealed to the authors whose papers they review; 408 manuscripts assigned to reviewers who agreed were randomised to signed or unsigned groups. We measured review quality, tone, recommendation for publication and time taken to complete each review.
Results A total of 245 reviewers (76%) agreed to sign. Signed reviews were of higher quality, were more courteous and took longer to complete than unsigned reviews. Reviewers who signed were more likely to recommend publication.
Conclusions This study supports the feasibility of an open peer review system and identifies such a system's potential drawbacks.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. R. Carpenter, M. G. Kenward, and I. R. White Sensitivity analysis after multiple imputation under missing at random: a weighting approach Statistical Methods in Medical Research, June 1, 2007; 16(3): 259 - 275. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. R White, J. Carpenter, S. Evans, and S. Schroter Eliciting and using expert opinions about dropout bias in randomized controlled trials Clinical Trials, April 1, 2007; 4(2): 125 - 139. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J Savulescu and A M Viens What makes the best medical ethics journal? A North American perspective J. Med. Ethics, October 1, 2005; 31(10): 591 - 597. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 V. Bence and C. Oppenheim The Influence of Peer Review on the Research Assessment Exercise Journal of Information Science, August 1, 2004; 30(4): 347 - 368. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Schroter, N. Black, S. Evans, J. Carpenter, F. Godlee, and R. Smith Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial BMJ, March 20, 2004; 328(7441): 673. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. WILKINSON Fare thee well - the Editor's last words The British Journal of Psychiatry, June 1, 2003; 182(6): 465 - 466. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Berghmans, A. P. Meert, C. Mascaux, M. Paesmans, J. J. Lafitte, and J. P. Sculier Citation indexes do not reflect methodological quality in lung cancer randomised trials Ann. Onc., May 1, 2003; 14(5): 715 - 721. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. Godlee Making Reviewers Visible: Openness, Accountability, and Credit JAMA, June 5, 2002; 287(21): 2762 - 2765. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Jefferson, P. Alderson, E. Wager, and F. Davidoff Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review JAMA, June 5, 2002; 287(21): 2784 - 2786. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Jefferson, E. Wager, and F. Davidoff Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review JAMA, June 5, 2002; 287(21): 2786 - 2790. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Psychiatric Bulletin | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment | All RCPsych Journals |
