SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study
4 references·16 citing·49 second hop
Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study (2011)Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manu…Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance (2006)Effect of Blinded Peer Review…Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports (1998)Effect on the Quality of Peer…Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Effect of Blinding and Unmask…How blind is blind review? (1991)How blind is blind review?ChatGPT identifies gender disparities in scientific peer review (2023)ChatGPT identifies gender dis…Challenges and Controversies in Peer Review (2023)Challenges and Controversies …The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review (2022)The impact of double-blind pe…Reglas y consejos para ser un buen revisor por pares de manuscritos científicos (2022)Reglas y consejos para ser un…Nobel and Novice: Author Prominence Affects Peer Review (2022)Nobel and Novice: Author Prom…Double- vs single-blind peer review effect on acceptance rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials (2022)Double- vs single-blind peer …Effects of Experimental Interventions to Improve the Biomedical Peer‐Review Process: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis (2021)Effects of Experimental Inter…Peer review: single-blind, double-blind, or all the way-blind? (2019)Peer review: single-blind, do…The perceived feasibility of methods to reduce publication bias (2017)The perceived feasibility of …Peer Review: From “Sacred Ideals” to “Profane Realities” (2017)Peer Review: From “Sacred Ide…Blinding applicants in a first-stage peer-review process of biomedical research grants: An observational study (2017)Blinding applicants in a firs…Blind Peer Review by Academic Journals (2016)Blind Peer Review by Academic…Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality (2015)Is Double-Blinded Peer Review…Inadequate use and regulation of interventions against publication bias decreases their effectiveness: a systematic review (2015)Inadequate use and regulation…Peer review (2014)Peer reviewManuscript Rejection (2014)Manuscript RejectionPublication and related biases. (2000)The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review (2016)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Barriers to scientific contributions: The author's formula (1982)The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review (1990)The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. (1990)Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review (1997)El sistema de revisión por expertos (peer review): muchos problemas y pocas soluciones (2002)Incidence and Nature of Unblinding by Authors: Our Experience at Two Radiology Journals with Double-Blinded Peer Review Policies (2002)US and Non-US Submissions (1998)Peer Review in Health Sciences (1999)Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial (2011)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review (1990)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)Reviews, reviewers and reviewing (2016)Time from submission to publication in plastic surgery journals: The story of accepted manuscripts (2019)A scoping review on biomedical journal peer review guides for reviewers (2021)Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care? (2010)Gender Authorship Trends of Plastic Surgery Research in the United States (2016)Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process (2016)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)Bifurcated Conversations in Sociological Studies of Religion and Gender (2017)Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste* (2018)Peer Review as an Evolving Response to Organizational Constraint: Evidence from Sociology Journals, 1952–2018 (2020)Towards theorizing peer review (2022)HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known (1998)Using thematic analysis in psychology (2006)The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science (2015)Publication of Randomized Clinical Trials in Pediatric Research (2018)Open laboratory notebooks: good for science, good for society, good for scientists (2019)Institutionalizing Open Science in Africa: Limitations and Prospects (2022)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students (2012)Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2019)A bibliometric analysis of the gender gap in the authorship of leading medical journals (2023)Who is publishing in ecology and evolution? the underrepresentation of women and the Global South (2023)Gender Disparity in Full Professor Rank Among Academic Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2024)The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. (1968)A power primer. (1992)Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda (2023)Rethinking academia in a time of climate crisis (2023)Scientific sinkhole: estimating the cost of peer review based on survey data with snowball sampling (2023)Testing and adjusting for publication bias (2001)A systematic review of randomized trials on the effectiveness of computer-tailored education on physical activity and dietary behaviors (2006)Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors (2007)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1998Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports334 cited
  • 1998Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review281 cited
  • 2006Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance250 cited
  • 1991How blind is blind review?65 cited

Cited by

  • 2022Nobel and Novice: Author Prominence Affects Peer Review146 cited
  • 2022The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review59 cited
  • 2017The perceived feasibility of methods to reduce publication bias51 cited
  • 2014Manuscript Rejection50 cited
  • 2015Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality47 cited
  • 2017Peer Review: From “Sacred Ideals” to “Profane Realities”46 cited
  • 2015Inadequate use and regulation of interventions against publication bias decreases their effectiveness: a systematic review46 cited
  • 2021Effects of Experimental Interventions to Improve the Biomedical Peer‐Review Process: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis35 cited
  • 2023Challenges and Controversies in Peer Review26 cited
  • 2022Double- vs single-blind peer review effect on acceptance rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials25 cited

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

  • 2014Peer review17 cited
  • 2017Blinding applicants in a first-stage peer-review process of biomedical research grants: An observational study16 cited
  • 2023ChatGPT identifies gender disparities in scientific peer review16 cited
  • 2019Peer review: single-blind, double-blind, or all the way-blind?14 cited
  • 2022Reglas y consejos para ser un buen revisor por pares de manuscritos científicos13 cited
  • 2016Blind Peer Review by Academic Journals13 cited