...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Medical education >To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer.
【24h】

To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer.

机译：盲还是不盲？作者和审稿人更喜欢什么。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In order to inform discussions about possible changes to Medical Education's blinding policy, members of the journal's editorial board were interested in discovering reviewers' and authors' preferences with regard to the current double-blind policy and various alternatives. In September 2005, an 8-question, web-based survey was sent to all authors and reviewers who had submitted or reviewed a manuscript for Medical Education in 2003 and 2004 (n = 2632). The questions asked about authorship and reviewing experiences and preferences regarding 5 types of blinding procedure, from double-blinding to fully unblinded, open reviews. Following 2 electronic mailings, 838 surveys were completed. There was a range of experience among respondents, with a high proportion of experienced authors (49% with over 20 publications) and reviewers (41% with over 20 reviews). Overall, 68% of respondents preferred a review process that concealed author names and 72% preferred a process that allowed for concealment of reviewer names. Less experienced authors and reviewers were significantly more likely to prefer concealing author names, but even the most experienced respondents had a 54% preference for author concealment. Reasons for concealing identities included facilitating fairness and honesty in reviews and acknowledging the need to avoid personal conflicts or rivalries. Reasons for revealing identities included facilitating greater transparency and accountability, and a better understanding of the author's and reviewer's contexts and credentials. 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.
机译：为了使讨论有关医学教育的盲目政策可能发生的变化，该期刊的编辑委员会成员有兴趣发现审稿人和作者对当前双盲政策和各种替代方案的偏爱。 2005年9月，向所有在2003和2004年（n = 2632）提交或审阅医学教育手稿的作者和审稿人发送了一个基​​于Web的8题调查。这些问题涉及作者身份以及对从双盲到完全无盲的公开评审的5种盲目程序的经历和偏好的审查。经过2封电子邮件，完成了838项调查。受访者的经历范围很广，其中经验丰富的作者（占49％的出版物超过20种）和审稿人（占41％的评论超过20种）的比例很高。总体而言，有68％的受访者更喜欢隐瞒作者姓名的审阅过程，而72％的更喜欢隐瞒作者姓名的审阅过程。经验不足的作者和审稿人更倾向于隐藏作者的姓名，但即使是经验最丰富的受访者，对作者隐藏的偏好也高达54％。隐藏身份的原因包括在审查中促进公平和诚实，并承认有必要避免人身冲突或竞争。透露身份的原因包括促进更大的透明度和问责制，以及更好地了解作者和审阅者的上下文和凭据。选择回答调查的医学教育作者和审稿人强烈投票赞成继续在审阅过程中同时隐藏作者和审稿人身份的双盲程序。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号