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.

Written byBob Grant
| 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

Related Topics

Meet the Author

  • From 2017 to 2022, Bob Grant was Editor in Chief of The Scientist, where he started in 2007 as a Staff Writer. Before joining the team, he worked as a reporter at Audubon and earned a master’s degree in science journalism from New York University. In his previous life, he pursued a career in science, getting a bachelor’s degree in wildlife biology from Montana State University and a master’s degree in marine biology from the College of Charleston in South Carolina. Bob edited Reading Frames and other sections of the magazine.

    View Full Profile
Share
February 2026

A Stubborn Gene, a Failed Experiment, and a New Path

When experiments refuse to cooperate, you try again and again. For Rafael Najmanovich, the setbacks ultimately pushed him in a new direction.

View this Issue
Human-Relevant In Vitro Models Enable Predictive Drug Discovery

Advancing Drug Discovery with Complex Human In Vitro Models

Stemcell Technologies
Redefining Immunology Through Advanced Technologies

Redefining Immunology Through Advanced Technologies

Ensuring Regulatory Compliance in AAV Manufacturing with Analytical Ultracentrifugation

Ensuring Regulatory Compliance in AAV Manufacturing with Analytical Ultracentrifugation

Beckman Coulter Logo
Conceptual multicolored vector image of cancer research, depicting various biomedical approaches to cancer therapy

Maximizing Cancer Research Model Systems

bioxcell

Products

Sino Biological Logo

Sino Biological Pioneers Life Sciences Innovation with High-Quality Bioreagents on Inside Business Today with Bill and Guiliana Rancic

Sino Biological Logo

Sino Biological Expands Research Reagent Portfolio to Support Global Nipah Virus Vaccine and Diagnostic Development

Beckman Coulter

Beckman Coulter Life Sciences Partners with Automata to Accelerate AI-Ready Laboratory Automation

Refeyn logo

Refeyn named in the Sunday Times 100 Tech list of the UK’s fastest-growing technology companies