2 Scopus citations


To the Editor: Your description of the peer-review process at the Journal (Sept. 21 issue)* deals superficially with the issue of blinding reviewers to authorship. The statement that “most manuscripts contain within them some ineradicable clues to authorship” is unsubstantiated. This issue could easily be studied quantitatively. There is justification for such an effort. We all seek to avoid bias, whether intentional or inadvertent, in each step of a scientific investigation — up to and including publication of the results. The burden of proof is on those who argue in favor of providing reviewers with authors' names, since it is.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)638-639
Number of pages2
JournalNew England Journal of Medicine
Issue number9
StatePublished - 1 Mar 1990


Dive into the research topics of 'Editorial peer review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this