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 Concept Videos

Blinding01:11

Blinding

3.8K
Blinding is a commonly used method of not telling participants which treatment a subject is receiving. Blinding is a critical part of a randomized control trial or RCT. It reduces the bias that affects the results. In an RCT, blinding is used in the form of a placebo. A placebo effect occurs when untreated subjects falsely believe they have received the treatment and report improved symptoms. A placebo or a dummy treatment is administered to subjects to negate the bias caused by such an effect.
3.8K
Blind Procedures02:07

Blind Procedures

12.8K
Ideally, the people who observe and record the children’s behavior are unaware of who was assigned to the experimental or control group, in order to control for experimenter bias. Experimenter bias refers to the possibility that a researcher’s expectations might skew the results of the study. Remember, conducting an experiment requires a lot of planning, and the people involved in the research project have a vested interest in supporting their hypotheses. If the observers knew which...
12.8K
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches01:23

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

382
Biopharmaceutical studies constitute a vital field aiming to enhance drug delivery methods and refine therapeutic approaches, drawing upon diverse interdisciplinary knowledge. In research methodologies, the choice between controlled and non-controlled studies significantly influences the study's reliability and accuracy.
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
382
Ethics in Research01:56

Ethics in Research

25.4K
Today, scientists agree that good research is ethical in nature and is guided by a basic respect for human dignity and safety. However, this has not always been the case. Modern researchers must demonstrate that the research they perform is ethically sound.
25.4K
Halo Effect01:27

Halo Effect

370
The halo effect is a cognitive bias in which an individual's overall impression influences judgments about their specific traits. This psychological phenomenon leads people to associate positive characteristics with those they perceive as generally good and negative characteristics with those they view as bad. This effect is particularly influential in social perception, professional evaluations, and decision-making processes.The Psychological Basis of the Halo EffectThe halo effect is rooted...
370
Bioavailability Study Design: Healthy Subjects Versus Patients01:15

Bioavailability Study Design: Healthy Subjects Versus Patients

135
Bioavailability studies are essential for evaluating a drug's therapeutic efficacy and understanding its absorption patterns under various physiological conditions. Conducting such studies on target patient populations provides more relevant data by simulating real-world disease states. However, practical challenges often necessitate the use of young, healthy adult volunteers as study subjects.Patients may exhibit altered drug absorption patterns due to the effects of the disease itself,...
135

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

Evaluation of tools to assess decision-making capacity in minor adolescents in clinical settings: a systematic review with narrative synthesis.

BMC medical ethics·2026
Same author

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) in society. Healthcare providers and researchers' views on the public health and socio-cultural implications of PRS in healthcare contexts.

Journal of community genetics·2026
Same author

Polygenic risk scores in health care contexts: Expanding roles, redrawing boundaries?

Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics·2026
Same author

To be or not to be value-free? A tension in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.

Accountability in research·2026
Same author

Understanding of Authorship Guidelines and the Frequency of Authorship Misuse: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study in the State of Qatar.

Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE·2025
Same author

Polygenic risk scores in healthcare contexts: what's the scope? An interview study of European healthcare providers and researchers' perspectives on ethical challenges.

Human genetics·2025
Same journal

Correction.

Accountability in research·2026
Same journal

Development, validity, and reliability of the pre-attendance conference evaluator (PACE) tool for identifying predatory conferences.

Accountability in research·2026
Same journal

Managing manuscripts with potential dual-use research of concern: A thematic analysis of life science journal policies.

Accountability in research·2026
Same journal

Researching retraction: Do we need more rules or more honesty?

Accountability in research·2026
Same journal

Accountability in evidence syntheses: On the need for rigorous peer review and reporting guidelines.

Accountability in research·2026
Same journal

Shared responsibility to address questionable research practices? - A study of perceived efficacy of organizational research integrity policies.

Accountability in research·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jan 9, 2026

Mouse Eye Enucleation for Remote High-throughput Phenotyping
05:30

Mouse Eye Enucleation for Remote High-throughput Phenotyping

Published on: November 19, 2011

21.0K

Rethinking (un)blinding in biomedical proposal peer review: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study.

Seba Qussini1,2, Farizah Mezer Anami2, Kris Dierickx1

  • 1Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Accountability in Research
|December 7, 2025
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Stakeholders desire more transparency in grant funding. Open peer review (OPR) offers a viable path to enhance accountability in proposal reviews, despite preferences for blinded systems.

Keywords:
(un)blindingProposals’ peer reviewopen peer reviewopen science movementqualitative research

More Related Videos

A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting
14:43

A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting

Published on: January 12, 2018

12.5K
Operating and Biocontainment Procedures of a Facility for Laboratory Mice with a Natural Microbiome: Immunophenotyping Procedure
05:34

Operating and Biocontainment Procedures of a Facility for Laboratory Mice with a Natural Microbiome: Immunophenotyping Procedure

Published on: December 13, 2024

1.0K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jan 9, 2026

Mouse Eye Enucleation for Remote High-throughput Phenotyping
05:30

Mouse Eye Enucleation for Remote High-throughput Phenotyping

Published on: November 19, 2011

21.0K
A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting
14:43

A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting

Published on: January 12, 2018

12.5K
Operating and Biocontainment Procedures of a Facility for Laboratory Mice with a Natural Microbiome: Immunophenotyping Procedure
05:34

Operating and Biocontainment Procedures of a Facility for Laboratory Mice with a Natural Microbiome: Immunophenotyping Procedure

Published on: December 13, 2024

1.0K

Area of Science:

  • Biomedical research funding
  • Grant proposal evaluation
  • Scientific peer review

Background:

  • Peer review processes for grant proposals face criticism and require further investigation.
  • Stakeholders' views on reviewer blinding and open peer review (OPR) in biomedical proposals are explored.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate stakeholder perspectives on reviewer blinding in grant proposal peer review.
  • To assess the implications of open peer review (OPR) for biomedical grant proposals.

Main Methods:

  • A qualitative descriptive study using semi-structured interviews with 23 participants from funding agencies in Belgium and Qatar.
  • Thematic framework analysis guided the examination of transcribed interviews, supplemented by quantitative ratings on peer review statements.

Main Results:

  • Three key themes emerged: prioritizing transparency in fund allocation while protecting reviewer anonymity.
  • Open peer review (OPR) is perceived as a practical method to improve transparency and accountability in proposal reviews.
  • A critical perspective on traditional peer review systems is increasingly evident among stakeholders.

Conclusions:

  • Despite a preference for double-blinded review, its limitations are apparent, especially amid funding challenges.
  • There is a recognized need for enhanced openness and transparency in the peer review of grant proposals and fund allocation processes.