Search

Journal articles that have been evaluated by blinded reviewers appear to have a higher quality, which leads to a greater number of citations of such articles. Double-blind reviews are those in which the author is unaware of the reviewer's identity and vice versa. Single-blind reviews are those in which the author is unaware of the reviewer's identity, but the reviewer knows who the author is. A comparison of 1,051 articles from 28 leading economics journals from 1984 found that articles that had received double-blind reviews were cited more than those that received single-blind reviews. Knowledge of the author apparently causes reviewers to extrapolate certain notions of quality that are based on familiarity rather than on universal standards., Objective.--To determine whether articles published in journals using blinded peer review receive significantly more or fewer citations than those published in journals using nonblinded peer review. Design.--Drawing from a sample of 1051 full articles published in 28 economics journals during 1984, we used nonlinear regression and ordered probit techniques to estimate the impact of blinded peer review on citations of these articles in 1985 through 1989. Outcomes.--Citations of articles. Results.--Articles published in journals using blinded peer review were cited significantly more than articles published in journals using nonblinded peer review, controlling for a variety of author, article, and journal attributes. Conclusions.--Nonblinded peer review apparently suffers from type I error to a greater extent than blinded peer review. That is, journals using nonblinded peer review publish a larger fraction of papers that should not have been published than do journals using blinded peer review. When reviewers know the identity of the author(s) of an article, they are able to (and evidently do) substitute particularistic criteria for universalistic criteria in their evaluative process. JAMA. 1994;272:147-149)