本人的博客上传科学网后，引起了很多网友（其中很多比我大，是前辈，但既然是讨论问题，还是不要分长幼好，故以网友称呼大家）的关注。本人特此感谢。

匿名评审博士、硕士学位论文，没必要，还有害，http://www.sciencenet.cn/blog/user_content.aspx?id=315636

其中网友readnet旗帜鲜明地支持盲审。真理越辩越明，感谢网友readnet提供了支持盲审的专业论文。让我们开始深入了解国际上对盲审的看法。

McNutt R, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, et al. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. a randomized trial. JAMA, 1990, 263:1371

Guarding the guardians. Research on editorial peer review: selected proceedings from the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. JAMA, 1990, 263(theme issue): 1309-1456

这两篇论文都是1990年发表的，那时我刚上本科。科学界变化很快，我对太老文献不太放心，就查了一下第一篇论文的引用情况，从google scholar中查到了163次引用。太多了，实在看不完。我抽了2006年及以后的全部论文，其中又有一些无法看到全文。从我看到的这些论文看，是否支持盲审学科差异很大。多数作者期刊不支持盲审，少数期刊编辑部研究的结果支持盲审，如Journal of Advanced Nursing。

如果各位网友有时间看了更多此方面讨论的专业论文，欢迎拿出来与大家分享。

论文中的原文均用引号表明，附上本人少量提示。

Nora S. Newcombe andMark E. Bouton
Masked Reviews Are Not Fairer Reviews
Perspectives on Psychological Science January 2009 4: 62-64, doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01102.x

“In summary, masked review is a method that is designed to address a problem (bias) for which there is surprisingly little evidence. To date, there is little evidence that masked review is effective in redressing bias, even if we concede that such bias exists. And masked review has potential costs and drawbacks to the research community. More empirical work on the existence and nature of bias is needed, including how various systems other than masked review might work to combat it (see Marsh et al., 2008, for suggestions). ”

“Disciplines differ as to whether both kinds of masking or only one or the other are used, as well as in whether masking is optional or required. Masking is less common in the physical and medical sciences than in the social sciences (Yankauer, 1991; see also Blank, 1991) and was endorsed by only 39% of the membership in a survey of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (Gidez, 1991). A survey of 96 medicine-related journals revealed that only 18.6% use masked review (Cleary & Alexander, 1988). ”

Peer Review: it's Time for More Openness
Duncan, Edward A.S.

The British Journal of Occupational Therapy, Volume 70, Number 1, January 2007 , pp. 43-45(3)

“This paper reviews the policy of double-blind (anonymous) peer reviewing and suggests that an open peer review policy would provide greater transparency, accountability and credit, thereby enhancing the quality of the journal and strengthening its position for the future.”

Double anonymity in peer review within the chemical periodical community
Richard J.C. BROWN
Learned Publishing, 20: 131–137
doi: 10.1087/174148507X185108

“Data on the number of journals currently offering a double-anonymity approach, the reasons why double anonymity is not more widely taken up, and opinions on the effectiveness of double anonymity in the peer-review process have been presented. Whilst few journals explicitly offer double anonymity to authors, many more would be prepared to grant it if authors so requested.”

 

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
Richard Smith
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Volume 99, Number 4 Pp. 178-182

“This trial was repeated on a larger scale by the BMJ and by a group in the USA who conducted the study in many different journals.11,12 Neither study found that blinding reviewers improved the quality of reviews. These studies also showed that such blinding is difficult to achieve (because many studies include internal clues on authorship), and that reviewers could identify the authors in about a quarter to a third of cases. But even when the results were analysed by looking at only those cases where blinding was successful there was no evidence of improved quality of the review. ”

“We began by conducting a randomized trial of open review (meaning that the authors but not readers knew the identity of the reviewers) against traditional review.13 It had no effect on the quality of reviewers' opinions. They were neither better nor worse. ” 过去采用的开放审稿似乎也是不好不坏。但作者认为改良开放审稿还是有希望的。“The final step was, in my mind, to open up the whole process and conduct it in real time on the web in front of the eyes of anybody interested. Peer review would then be transformed from a black box into an open scientific discourse. Often I found the discourse around a study was a lot more interesting than the study itself. Now that I have left I am not sure if this system will be introduced. ”

Jerry Suls and Rene Martin
The Air We Breathe: A Critical Look at Practices and Alternatives in the Peer-Review Process
Perspectives on Psychological Science January 2009 4: 40-50, doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01105.x

“The obvious—and seemingly straightforward—way to minimize prestige bias is for editors to blind reviewer to the identities and institutional affiliations of authors. Unfortunately, this strategy is surprisingly difficult to implement. Four randomized trials in biomedicine found that reviewers were able to successfully identify the authors of a blinded manuscript in 23%–42% of cases (Godlee et al., 1998; Justice et al., 1998; McNutt, Evans, Fletcher, & Fletcher, 1990; van Rooyen, Godlee, Evans, Smith, & Black, 1998). A survey by an editor of Physics Review Letters found that referees could correctly identify 80% of the submitting authors, despite efforts to mask author identity (Adair, 1982). It is possible that physics provides a narrower range of potential reviewers, but anecdotal evidence suggests that psychology reviewers often are able to correctly guess authors' identities. Even when inaccurate, referees' hunches regarding author identity introduce a source of bias into the review process.”

The ups and downs of peer review. Advan. Physiol. Edu. 31: 145-152, 2007; doi:10.1152/advan.00104.2006 中性评价

下面两篇论文支持盲审。
Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals
Judith Gedney Baggs, Marion E. Broome, Molly C. Dougherty, Margaret C. Freda & Margaret H. Kearney
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Volume 64 Issue 2, Pages 131 - 138, 2008.

“Nursing journal reviewers are generally very satisfied with double-blinding 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.”

To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer.
Glenn Regehr & Georges Bordage
Medical Education
Volume 40 Issue 9, Pages 832 - 839
“The Medical Education authors and reviewers who chose to respond to the survey voted strongly in favour of continuing the double-blinding procedure of concealing both author and reviewer identities during the review process.”

转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自牛登科科学网博客。
链接地址：https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-61772-316545.html

上一篇：答辩关能把好吗？
下一篇：关于进化的争论，我们相信谁？