Peer review: single-blind, double-blind, or all the way-blind?

Bazi, Tony

doi:10.1007/s00192-019-04187-2

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Peer review processes can also be double-blinded to the authors' names and affiliations, which may contribute to PB risk mitigation. [74][75][76][77] Peer review processes blinded to results aim to judge studies on the validity of study design and methods, rather than significance of results. 78 Many journals in fields within science and medicine have begun to test blinded peerreview processes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Publication Bias in the Plastic Surgery Literature

Katabi

Desimone

et al. 2023

Plastic &Amp; Reconstructive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Publication bias (PB) is the preferential publishing of studies with statistically significant results. PB can skew findings of systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA), with potential consequences for patient care and health policy. This study aims to determine the extent by which SRs and MAs in the plastic surgery literature evaluate and report PB. Methods: This cross-sectional study assessed PB reporting and analysis from plastic surgery studies published between January 1, 2015 and June 19, 2020. Full-texts of SRs and MAs were assessed by two reviewers for PB assessment methodology and analysis. Post-hoc assessment of studies that did not originally analyze PB was performed using Egger’s regression, Duval and Tweedie’s trim-and-fill, and Copas selection models. Results: There were 549 studies evaluated, of which 531 full-texts were included. PB was discussed by 183 (34.5%) studies, and formally assessed by 97 (18.3%) studies. Among SR and MAs that formally assessed PB, PB was present in 24 (10.7%), not present in 52 (23.1%), and inconclusive in 8 (3.6%) studies; 141 (62.7%) studies did not report the results of their PB assessment. Funnel plots were the most common assessment method (n=88, 39.1%), and 60 (68.2%) studies published funnel plots. The post-hoc assessment revealed PB in 17/20 (85.0%) studies. Conclusion: PB is inadequately reported and analyzed amongst studies in the plastic surgery literature. Most studies that assessed PB found PB, as did post-hoc analysis of non-reporting studies. Increased assessment and reporting of PB amongst SRs and MAs would improve quality of evidence in plastic surgery.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Publication Bias in the Plastic Surgery Literature

Katabi

Desimone

et al. 2023

Plastic &Amp; Reconstructive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The work of reviewers is already volunteer-based and the double-blind peer review process can increase administrative work and make submissions and reviews even more cumbersome and time consuming. Furthermore, in very specialized fields like gynecologic oncology, anonymity cannot always be guaranteed despite best efforts ( Bazi, 2020 ). Additionally, DBR has drawbacks from an editorial standpoint including limiting ability to reading the prior work of the authors, evaluating material published by the submitter’s peers, and to assess for self-plagiarism and duplicative publishing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does origin of article impact citation metrics in Gynecologic Oncology?

Corey

Walker

Corey

et al. 2022

Gynecologic Oncology Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Additionally, there exists a considerable body of literature that aims to improve peer review from the reviewer's perspective. This includes investigations into single versus double blind reviewing (Blank 1991;Snodgrass 2006;Bazi 2020), assigning versus bidding papers (Cabanac and Preuss 2013;Meir et al 2021), review scale and miscalibration (Siegelman 1991;Wang and Shah 2018;Spalvieri et al 2014), and dishonest behaviors (Cohen et al 2016;Fanelli 2009;Littman 2021). A recent survey by Shah (2022) provides additional contexts and perspectives on the problems of peer review.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eliciting Honest Information from Authors Using Sequential Review

Zhang,

Schoenebeck,

2024

AAAI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the setting of conference peer review, the conference aims to accept high-quality papers and reject low-quality papers based on noisy review scores. A recent work proposes the isotonic mechanism, which can elicit the ranking of paper qualities from an author with multiple submissions to help improve the conference's decisions. However, the isotonic mechanism relies on the assumption that the author's utility is both an increasing and a convex function with respect to the review score, which is often violated in realistic settings (e.g.~when authors aim to maximize the number of accepted papers). In this paper, we propose a sequential review mechanism that can truthfully elicit the ranking information from authors while only assuming the agent's utility is increasing with respect to the true quality of her accepted papers. The key idea is to review the papers of an author in a sequence based on the provided ranking and conditioning the review of the next paper on the review scores of the previous papers. Advantages of the sequential review mechanism include: 1) eliciting truthful ranking information in a more realistic setting than prior work; 2) reducing the reviewing workload and increasing the average quality of papers being reviewed; 3) incentivizing authors to write fewer papers of higher quality.

show abstract

Peer review: single-blind, double-blind, or all the way-blind?

Cited by 10 publications

References 16 publications

A Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Publication Bias in the Plastic Surgery Literature

A Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Publication Bias in the Plastic Surgery Literature

Does origin of article impact citation metrics in Gynecologic Oncology?

Eliciting Honest Information from Authors Using Sequential Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About