Abstract
Background/Objectives To assess whether the type of peer-review (single-blinded vs double-blinded) has an impact on nationality representation in journals.
Methods A cross-sectional study analyzing the top ten nationalities contributing to the number of articles across 16 ophthalmology journals.
Results There was no significant difference in the percentage of articles published from the journal’s country of origin between the top single-blind journals and top double-blind journals (SB= 42.0%, DB = 26.6%, p=0.49) but there was a significant difference between the percentage of articles from the US (SB=48.0%, DB=22.8%, p=0.02). However, there was no significant difference for both country of origin (SB =38.0%, DB =26.6%, p=0.43) and articles from the US (SB=35.0%, DB=22.8%, p=0.21) when assessing the top 8 double-blind journals matched with single-blind journals of a similar impact factor. The countries that most commonly made the top ten lists for highest number of articles were the US (n=16, 100%) and England (n=16, 100%). This held true even for journals established outside the United States (US=11/12, England=11/12).
Conclusions There was no statistically significant difference in country-of-origin representation between single-blind journals and double-blind journals. However, higher income countries contributed most often to the journals studied even among journals based outside the US.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No financial support was provided for this study
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The research adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and need for Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was waived by the University of Miami IRB.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Meeting Presentation: This data has not been submitted nor presented at any local or national conferences
Financial Support: No Financial Support was provided for this study
Conflict of Interest: Dr. Sridhar is a consultant for Alcon, Dorc, Regeneron, and Oxurion. Dr. Parikh is a consultant for Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield.
Data Availability
All data was collected from the Journal Citation Reports produced by the Institute of Scientific Information
