Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

How blind is blind review?

A Yankauer1

  • 1Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester 01655.

American Journal of Public Health
|July 1, 1991
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Most reviewers favor blind review, believing it reduces bias. While not always successful, blind review is generally effective when personal knowledge is the only clue for identification.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

An evaluation of the effectiveness of the Astoria plan for medical service in two New York City elementary schools.

American journal of public health and the nation's health·2010
Same author

The neglected lesson of the Tuskegee study.

American journal of public health·1998
Same author

Reacting to epidemics--past and present.

The Pharos of Alpha Omega Alpha-Honor Medical Society. Alpha Omega Alpha·1998
Same author

Re: authors and authorship.

American journal of public health·1998
Same author

Pierre Charles-Alexandre Louis: the impact of a clinical trial.

The Pharos of Alpha Omega Alpha-Honor Medical Society. Alpha Omega Alpha·1996
Same author

Ethics and journal publishing: taking the debate forward. The ordeals of editors.

Addiction (Abingdon, England)·1995
Same journal

Erratum In: "Ogunbajo et al. Respond".

American journal of public health·2026
Same journal

The Role of Gender in HIV Care Engagement Among Individuals Assigned Male Sex at Birth: Medical Monitoring Project, United States, 2015-2022.

American journal of public health·2026
Same journal

Domestic Returns to Predictable US Participation in the World Health Organization: Health Security and Cost.

American journal of public health·2026
Same journal

The Risks of Mortality, Cardiovascular Events, and Pulmonary Complications in Cancer Patients Who Smoke Cigarettes and Switch to E-Cigarettes: South Korea, 2015‒2022.

American journal of public health·2026
Same journal

Retailers CARE Program in Montgomery County, Ohio, Partners With Alcohol, Tobacco, and Lottery Retailers to Promote Healthier Communities.

American journal of public health·2026
Same journal

Trends in Sexual Activity, Condom Use, and Use of Pregnancy Prevention Methods Among Female Adolescents: United States, 2007-2023.

American journal of public health·2026
See all related articles

Area of Science:

  • Bibliometrics
  • Scholarly Communication

Background:

  • Limited data exists on scientific opinion and success rates of blind review.
  • The American Journal of Public Health has utilized blind review since 1977.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To survey reviewer opinions on blind review.
  • To assess the success rate of the blinding process in manuscript review.

Main Methods:

  • 312 reviewers were surveyed regarding their ability to identify authors/institutions.
  • Reviewers provided clues for identification and opinions on blind review.

Main Results:

  • Reviewers identified authors/institutions in 47% of cases; 39% were correct.
  • Self-referencing (62%) and personal knowledge (38%) were key identification clues.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Blinding was successful in 83% of personal knowledge cases; 75% of reviewers favored blind review, citing bias reduction.

    • Conclusions:

    • Blind review at the American Journal of Public Health is generally successful but not foolproof.
    • Reviewer preference, which varies by journal, is a valid basis for policy on blind review in the absence of definitive data.