A survey was mailed to 293 referees from the review board of Food Science and Technology International with the following personal characteristics: ages: 35–45 (35%), 45–55 (37%), and 55–65 (27%); 93% PhD graduates; 69% male, 98% researchers, 82% teachers too, 85% review for other journals as well to assess reviewers’ attitudes or preferences in favor of or against masking their identity, and toward the electronic transmission of papers for review. The reviewers were mainly from Europe, North America, and South America. The questionnaire was anonymous and asked if respondents were in favor of an open review or masking of the reviewers, and if they agreed with the electronic transmission of the papers for their review (both from the point of view of author and reviewer). The response rate was 35% (103 respondents). The consistency between the answers as being authors or reviewers when asked by the peer review process was significant (P<0.001) without significant differences in terms of gender or age. Seventy-five percent were in favor of masking reviewers, and 17% completely favored unblinded review. The consistency between the answers for paper transmission was significant (P<0.001) without significant differences in terms of gender or age. Seventy-five percent were in favor of electronic transmission, 25% were against it. There was a significant association between the answers in favor of or against e-transmission and the age either as reviewers (P=0.009) or as authors (P= 0.031). The other associations between the system of review and gender or age were not significant. There was a preference among the participants for masking the reviewers, and a tendency to use the Web as the transmission medium because it is considered faster, easier, simpler, and more economic.
[1]
R. Fletcher,et al.
The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.
,
1990,
JAMA.
[2]
John Peters.
The Hundred Years War Started Today: An exploration of electronic peer review
,
1996
.
[3]
S. Goldbeck-Wood,et al.
What makes a good reviewer of manuscripts?
,
1998,
BMJ.
[4]
Stevan Harnad,et al.
The invisible hand of peer review
,
1998
.
[5]
D. Rennie,et al.
Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.
,
1998,
JAMA.
[6]
F. Godlee,et al.
Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial.
,
1998,
JAMA.
[7]
D. Rennie,et al.
Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators.
,
1998,
JAMA.
[8]
N. Black,et al.
Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial.
,
1998,
JAMA.
[9]
F. Godlee,et al.
Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial
,
1999,
BMJ.
[10]
R Smith,et al.
Opening up BMJ peer review
,
1999,
BMJ.
[11]
S Goldbeck-Wood,et al.
Evidence on peer review—scientific quality control or smokescreen?
,
1999,
BMJ.
[12]
Simon Buckingham Shum,et al.
Redesigning the Peer Review Process: A Developmental Theory-in-Action
,
2000,
COOP.
[13]
G. Wilkinson,et al.
Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial
,
2000,
British Journal of Psychiatry.
[14]
Fytton Rowland,et al.
The peer‐review process
,
2002,
Learn. Publ..