Reviewing Results-Free Manuscripts

An open-access journal is trialing a peer-review process in which reviewers do not have access to the results or discussion sections of submitted papers.

| 2 min read

Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
2:00
Share

BMC Psychology is trialing a new method of peer review that obscures results and discussion sections from reviewers.WIKIMEDIA, CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC REVIEWResults-free peer review is getting its day in court, thanks to BMC Psychology, an open-access journal that is launching the first-ever randomized controlled trial of the process. Results-free peer review puts manuscripts before reviewers without divulging results or discussion sections until the end of the process. In theory, this alteration to traditional peer review decreases publication bias by forcing reviewers to focus solely on methodology and approach to an experimental question.

“Publication bias is a serious issue in academic publishing because it distorts the evidence available to clinicians, researchers, and policymakers—potentially leading to false conclusions that could have severe consequences,” said Katherine Button, a University of Bath scientist and advocate for improving the transparency of research, in a statement.

BMC Psychology will conduct an initial pilot phase of the trial, testing the feasibility and efficiency of the new peer-review process on the first 10 manuscripts whose authors opt in to the study. Then, authors who consent to the full trial will have their manuscripts randomly assigned to results-free or traditional peer review.

“In the first stage of review, the manuscript will be 'accepted in principle' based on the rationale and methods only,” Liz Bal, associate publisher ...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

The Scientist Logo
Receive full access to more than 35 years of archives, as well as TS Digest, digital editions of The Scientist, feature stories, and much more!
Already a member? Login Here

Keywords

Meet the Author

  • Bob Grant

    From 2017 to 2022, Bob Grant was Editor in Chief of The Scientist, where he started in 2007 as a Staff Writer.
Share
May digest 2025 cover
May 2025, Issue 1

Study Confirms Safety of Genetically Modified T Cells

A long-term study of nearly 800 patients demonstrated a strong safety profile for T cells engineered with viral vectors.

View this Issue
iStock

TaqMan Probe & Assays: Unveil What's Possible Together

Thermo Fisher Logo
Meet Aunty and Tackle Protein Stability Questions in Research and Development

Meet Aunty and Tackle Protein Stability Questions in Research and Development

Unchained Labs
Detecting Residual Cell Line-Derived DNA with Droplet Digital PCR

Detecting Residual Cell Line-Derived DNA with Droplet Digital PCR

Bio-Rad
How technology makes PCR instruments easier to use.

Making Real-Time PCR More Straightforward

Thermo Fisher Logo

Products

The Scientist Placeholder Image

Biotium Launches New Phalloidin Conjugates with Extended F-actin Staining Stability for Greater Imaging Flexibility

Leica Microsystems Logo

Latest AI software simplifies image analysis and speeds up insights for scientists

BioSkryb Genomics Logo

BioSkryb Genomics and Tecan introduce a single-cell multiomics workflow for sequencing-ready libraries in under ten hours

iStock

Agilent BioTek Cytation C10 Confocal Imaging Reader

agilent technologies logo