Letter from the Editor

Blinded by the Light

“And he spake a parable unto them: Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the ditch?” [1] The editor's answer to Jesus might have been: “No, they shall probably be enlightened.”

In the world of peer-reviewed publishing the blinding of people is quite common, much like it seems to have been in the world of Oedipus, Polyphem, Teiresias et al. Most scientific journals have a single-blinded review process, usually meaning that an author will not know who the reviewers were, whereas the reviewers are well aware of the manuscript's origin. In 1990 the results of a randomized trial showed that blinding peers to authors' and institution's names did improve the quality of the reviews [2]. This was also supposedly the first study proving that research on the peer review process was feasible and important. The seemingly beneficial effect of blinding peers was contradicted by two subsequent large-scale studies in the USA and Great Britain which found no significant influence [3], [4]. Moreover, these investigators claimed that it was sometimes difficult to mask the identity of authors, especially when they were well-known and in whom successful anonymization would perhaps have had more of an effect. Nor did a totally open policy influence the quality of the review. This did, however, considerably increase the likelihood of a reviewer declining to participate [5]. In the age of open access, a public discussion with ongoing reviews can be found for very progressive internet publications (http://www.bmj.com). Most more conservative medical journals still stick to the single-blinded policy (author to reviewer), which seems a bit unfair to the former.

When your editor took over his task, a double-blinded peer review process had already been well established for The Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon. It must be acknowledged here that the blinding process means a considerable piece of work, meticulously done by Mrs Beate Zehmer, our administrative assistant. She anonymizes each incoming manuscript including all revisions, combing the text to eliminate potential internal clues on authorship. The time seemed ripe for a quality control.

When the manuscript by Kappert et al. [6] was submitted, it was sent to two reviewers, one of them the coronary expert on our board, Johannes Albes. Both reviews suggested revision with the one by Prof Albes being by far the more critical one. The manuscript then went through two revisions until everybody was satisfied and suggested acceptance. Following the policy to stimulate scientific debate the editor asked the board member to provide him with an Invited Commentary in which he could express his concerns. This was promptly done and forwarded to the senior author of the manuscript, Stefanos Demertzis. He, in turn, asked if a reply to the commentary was possible, and after some pondering this was agreed upon. You will find the final result in this issue. Great was the surprise to both author and reviewer when they learned about each other's identity – only when receiving the publisher's proofs for correction. Stefanos and Johannes have known each other since the 1980s when they were residents at Hannover Medical School under Hans Borst, and have stayed friends ever since. This spontaneous test and the verdict of the victims have convinced the editor to keep the double-blinded process, because it really does seem to enforce neutrality.

By the way: this is the first anniversary of the Letters-FROM‐the-editor. I hope you enjoy reading as much as I do writing them.

References

• 1 New Testament; Gospel of St. Luke: 6; 39. 
• 2 McNutt R A, Evans A T, Fletcher R H, Fletcher S W. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.  JAMA. 1990;  263 1371-1376
• 3 Justice A C, Cho M K, Winker M A, Berlin J A, Rennie D. the PEER investigators . Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial.  JAMA. 1998;  280 240-242
• 4 van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S et al. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial.  JAMA. 1998;  280 234-237
• 5 van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S et al. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewer's recommendations: a randomised trial.  BMJ. 1999;  18 23-27
• 6 Kappert U, Ouda A, Virmani R, Mettler D, Matschke K, Demertzis S. The C-Port xV® vascular anastomosis system: results from an animal trial.  Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;  59 222-228

Ready – Steady – Go! An Announcement

The discerning reader will have realized that The Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon is currently introducing yet another little feature. Whereas so far an article was accompanied only by the date when it was “received”, additional information can be found now.

Three dates are listed: “received” = meaning the date when the manuscript was first entered into the submission system – ready; “resubmitted” = meaning the date when the last revised version was provided by the authors, should a revision have been asked for – steady; “accepted” = the date when the final decision of acceptance was made by the editorial office – go!

The transparency achieved by this information allows a much better illustration of the review process a manuscript went through. This, together with the introduction of eFirst, is intended as a further service to both authors and readers. The editor wishes to thank the production team at Thieme for enabling us to implement constant improvements so smoothly.

M. K. Heinemann
Editor-in-Chief