Publication bias occurs when studies with statistically significant results and large effects are more likely to be published than similarly rigorous studies with null and mixed findings. Results-blind peer review requires peer reviewers to consider only the “Introduction” and “Method” sections of submitted manuscripts prior to making editorial recommendations. This process ensures recommendations for publication focus on methodological rigor and not the direction, significance, or magnitude of the reported effects. The current investigation experimentally tested whether reviewers’ editorial recommendations and perceptions of manuscript importance, quality, and rigor varied as a function of type of review (i.e., results-blind or results-included) among 44 reviewers. Results indicated reviewer recommendations did not vary as a function of review type. However, reviewers found results-blind manuscripts less rigorous than results-included and reported less confidence in their recommendations on result-blinded manuscripts. Descriptive findings of results-blind reviewing were mixed with some support for the method, but a lack of confidence in its overall effectiveness. We discuss findings in relation to the conceptual benefits of results-blind reviewing and the increased focus on open and transparent science within special education and preview the papers included in the special section.

当具有统计显着性结果和重大影响的研究比具有零星结果和混合结果的类似严格研究更可能被发表时，就会出现出版偏倚。结果盲的同行评审要求同行评审在提出编辑建议之前仅考虑所提交手稿的“简介”和“方法”部分。此过程可确保发布建议的重点在于方法的严谨性，而不是所报告影响的方向，重要性或严重性。当前的调查实验性地检验了44名审稿人中审稿人的编辑建议和对稿件重要性，质量和严谨性的看法是否随审阅类型（即结果盲或包括结果）而异。结果表明，审阅者的建议没有随审阅类型而变化。但是，审稿人发现，结果盲稿的严格性不及结果审稿稿，并且对他们对结果盲稿的建议信心不足。结果盲审查的描述性发现与对该方法的一些支持相混合，但是对该方法的整体有效性缺乏信心。我们讨论与结果盲审查的概念性收益相关的发现，以及在特殊教育中对开放和透明科学的日益关注，并预览特殊部分中包含的论文。结果盲审查的描述性发现与对该方法的一些支持相混合，但是对该方法的整体有效性缺乏信心。我们讨论与结果盲审查的概念性收益相关的发现，以及在特殊教育中对开放和透明科学的日益关注，并预览特殊部分中包含的论文。结果盲审查的描述性发现与对该方法的一些支持相混合，但是对该方法的整体有效性缺乏信心。我们讨论与结果盲审查的概念性收益相关的发现，以及在特殊教育中对开放和透明科学的日益关注，并预览特殊部分中包含的论文。