REFERENCES
- Cho MK, Justice AC, Winker MA, et al. Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER investigators. JAMA. 1998;280:243–245.
- Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D.1998. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER investigators. JAMA. 1998;280:240–242.
- van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1998;280:234–237.
- van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ. 1999;318:23–27.
- McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. JAMA. 1990;263:1371–1376.
- Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:622–624.
- Berg TD, Irwin CE Jr. Blind no more. J Adolesc Health. 2009;45:7.
- Regehr G, Bordage G. To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer. Med Educ. 2006;40:832–839.
- Gordon AJ. Substance abuse journal: new beginnings. Subst Abus. 2013;34:339–341.
- Eva KW. To blind or not to blind? That remains the question. Med Educ. 2012;46:924–925.
- Society for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and Other Drugs. The Farmington Consensus. Addiction. 1997;92:1617–1618. Available at: http://www.parint.org/isajewebsite/farmcon.pdf. Accessed February 11, 2014.
- Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Godlee F, Osorio L, Smith R. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J R Soc Med. 2008;101:507–514.
- Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2004;328:673–675.