Title. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. Aim. This paper is a report of a study to assess the beliefs and preferences of reviewers for nursing journals about blinding of authors to reviewers, reviewers to authors, neither or both. Background. Blinding of author and reviewer names in the manuscript review process has been of interest to nursing editors, but reports that are based on data rather than simply opinion concern the editorial practices of biomedical rather than nursing journals. There has been no study of nursing journal reviewer beliefs and preferences related to blinding. Method. A descriptive web-based survey was conducted. The sample included 1675 anonymous reviewers, recruited through 52 editors of nursing journals from their review panels. Data were collected in 2007. Findings. Double-blinding of reviews was the most common method reported. Ninety per cent of respondents reported that the papers they received to review did not include author names. When author names were blinded, 62% of reviewers could not identify the authors of papers; another 17% could identify authors £10% of the time. Double-blinding was the method preferred by 93AE6% of reviewers, although some identified some advantages to an unblinded open review process. Conclusion. Nursing journal reviewers are generally very satisfied with doubleblinding and believe it contributes to the quality of papers published. Editors or editorial boards interested in a more open review process could consider alternatives such as offering authors and reviewers the option to unblind themselves. Simply announcing that the review process will henceforth be unblinded would probably lead to loss of reviewers.

No abstract

No abstract

Context Antenatal corticosteroids for fetal maturation have been underused, despite evidence for their benefits in cases of preterm birth. Objective To evaluate dissemination strategies aimed at increasing appropriate use of this therapy. Design and Setting Twenty-seven tertiary care institutions were randomly assigned to either usual dissemination of practice recommendations (n = 14) or usual dissemination plus an active, focused dissemination effort (n = 13). Subjects Obstetricians and their preterm delivery cases at participating hospitals. Intervention Recommendations by a National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Conference held in late February-early March 1994 were disseminated in early May 1994. Usual dissemination was publication of the recommendations and endorsement by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Active dissemination was a year-long educational effort led by an influential physician and a nurse coordinator at each facility, consisting of grand rounds, a chart reminder system, group discussion of case scenarios, monitoring, and feedback. Main Outcome Measure Use or nonuse of antenatal corticosteroids was abstracted from medical records of eligible women delivering at the participating hospitals in the 12 months immediately prior to release of the NIH recommendations (average number of records abstracted, 130) and in the 12 months following their release (average number of records abstracted, 122). Results Active dissemination significantly increased the odds of corticosteroid use after the conference. Use increased from 33.0% of eligible patients receiving corticosteroids to 57.6%, or by 75% over baseline, in usual dissemination hospitals. Use increased from 32.9% to 68.3%, or an 108% increase, in active dissemination hospitals. Gestational age and maternal diagnosis affected use of the therapy in complex ways. Conclusion An active, focused dissemination effort increased the effectiveness of usual dissemination methods when combined with key principles to change physician practices.