Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the internet: principles governing AMA web sites. American Medical Association.

Access to medical information via the Internet has the potential to speed the transformation of the patient-physician relationship from that of physician authority ministering advice and treatment to that of shared decision making between patient and physician. However, barriers impeding this transformation include wide variations in quality of content on the Web, potential for commercial interests to influence online content, and uncertain preservation of personal privacy. To address these issues, the American Medical Association (AMA) has developed principles to guide development and posting of Web site content, govern acquisition and posting of online advertising and sponsorship, ensure site visitors' and patients' rights to privacy and confidentiality, and provide effective and secure means of e-commerce. While these guidelines were developed for the AMA Web sites and visitors to these sites, they also may be useful to other providers and users of medical information on the Web. These principles have been developed with the understanding that they will require frequent revision to keep pace with evolving technology and practices on the Internet. The AMA encourages review and feedback from readers, Web site visitors, policymakers, and all others interested in providing reliable quality information via the Web.

Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators.

CONTEXT: In a previous study, we found that masking success was higher at a journal that masked reviewers to author identity. We hypothesized that masking policy or other factors could be associated with masking success. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate differences in success of masking reviewers to author identity at 7 biomedical journals and to identify factors associated with these differences. DESIGN: Written questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: Reviewers at 3 journals with a long-standing policy of masking author identity (Annals of Emergency Medicine, Epidemiology, and Journal of the American Geriatrics Society) and 4 journals without a policy of masking author identity (Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and Ophthalmology). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Masking success (percentage of reviewers successfully masked) and reviewer characteristics associated with masking. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in masking success between journals with a policy of masking (60%) and those without (58%) (P= .92). We found no association between masking success and a policy of masking when adjusted for the reviewer characteristics of age, sex, years of reviewing experience, number of articles published, number of articles reviewed, percentage of time spent in research, editorial experience, or academic rank (odds ratio [OR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-2.8; P=.43). In multivariable analysis of reviewer characteristics, reviewers spending a greater percentage of time in research, the only significant predictor of masking success, were less likely to be successfully masked (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02) (P=.04). CONCLUSIONS: Masking success appears unrelated to a journal policy of masking, but is associated with reviewers' research experience and could be affected by other characteristics. Using reviewers with less research and reviewing experience might increase masking success, but the effect on review quality is unknown.

Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.

CONTEXT: All authors may not be equal in the eyes of reviewers. Specifically, well-known authors may receive less objective (poorer quality) reviews. One study at a single journal found a small improvement in review quality when reviewers were masked to author identity. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether masking reviewers to author identity is generally associated with higher quality of review at biomedical journals, and to determine the success of routine masking techniques. DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomized controlled trial performed on external reviews of manuscripts submitted to Annals of Emergency Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and Ophthalmology. INTERVENTIONS: Two peers reviewed each manuscript. In one study arm, both peer reviewers received the manuscript according to usual masking practice. In the other arm, one reviewer was randomized to receive a manuscript with author identity masked, and the other reviewer received an unmasked manuscript. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Review quality on a 5-point Likert scale as judged by manuscript author and editor. A difference of 0.5 or greater was considered important. RESULTS: A total of 118 manuscripts were randomized, 26 to usual practice and 92 to intervention. In the intervention arm, editor quality assessment was complete for 77 (84%) of 92 manuscripts. Author quality assessment was complete on 40 (54%) of 74 manuscripts. Authors and editors perceived no significant difference in quality between masked (mean difference, 0.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.2 to 0.4) and unmasked (mean difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.4) reviews. We also found no difference in the degree to which the review influenced the editorial decision (mean difference, -0.1; 95% CI,-0.3 to 0.3). Masking was often unsuccessful (overall, 68% successfully masked; 95% CI, 58%-77%), although 1 journal had significantly better masking success than others (90% successfully masked; 95% CI, 73%-98%). Manuscripts by generally known authors were less likely to be successfully masked (odds ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.8). When analysis was restricted to manuscripts that were successfully masked, review quality as assessed by editors and authors still did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Masking reviewers to author identity as commonly practiced does not improve quality of reviews. Since manuscripts of well-known authors are more difficult to mask, and those manuscripts may be more likely to benefit from masking, the inability to mask reviewers to the identity of well-known authors may have contributed to the lack of effect.