Skip to main content
SMFM 2024 Pregnancy Meeting Main banner
Final Program


Icon Legend
This session is not in your schedule.
This session is in your schedule. Click again to remove it.
Presentation Icons
Additional registration fee required
Additional registration fee required
Faculty have requested this content not be shared on social media
Faculty have requested this content not be shared on social media
CME Credit Offered
CME Credit Offered
Poster Icons
Foundation Awardee
Foundation Awardee
No Social Media
No Social Media
Back
Q&A

Education/Simulation

Poster Session 2

(382) Effect of Single vs. Double Blind Peer Review: Interrupted Time Series Analysis

Tuesday, February 13, 2024
3:30 PM – 5:00 PM  
Location: Prince George's Exhibit Hall CDE, Lower Atrium Level
Objective:

To evaluate the impact of peer-review type (single-blind vs double-blind) on the institutional, country of origin, and female author representation in two major OBGYN journals.

Study Design:

This was a bibliometric analysis of comparing publication in Obstetrics & Gynecology (Green Journal) which implemented double-blind peer review in July 2021with the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (AJOG) which did not change from single-blind peer review. In double-blind peer review, information on authors such as name and institution was blinded. However, the country was not blinded. We retrieved all articles published from 2019 to 2023. Our primary outcome was the proportion of published articles from US institutions’ in the top 50 funded OBGYN departments based on the NIH RePORTER database each year (2018-2022). Our secondary outcomes were the country of origin, female first, and last authors. The sex of the authors was determined by a Google-based webtool. Considering the review to publication period would be 3 to 4 months, we assumed that Green Journal publications in 2022 and 2023 (post-intervention) would have had double-blind peer reviews. We conducted a multiple group interrupted time series analysis using ordinary least squares regression, with AJOG being the referent journal.

Results:

During the analysis period, 450 of 1273 (35.4%) in AJOG and 298 of 950 (31.4%) in the Green Journal were published in the post-intervention period. Compared with AJOG, the Green Journal proportion of publications by top US research institutions, female corresponding author, and female first author did not significantly change after the intervention (p=0.52, 0.06, and 0.53 respectively), but the proportion of articles from the United States increased significantly after the intervention (P < 0.001).

Conclusion:

Double-blinded review did not impact the characteristics that were blinded but did decrease the proportion of published manuscript originating outside the US. Green Journal should consider blinding the country.