Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

Use of double‐blind peer review to increase author diversity

16 references·16 citing·40 second hopsampled

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop· second hop is a sample of the most-cited connections

References

2012Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students3,139 cited
2000Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of “Blind” Auditions on Female Musicians1,758 cited
2013Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science1,496 cited
1997Nepotism and sexism in peer-review1,346 cited
2011Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science1,116 cited
2007Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors551 cited
2001Testing and adjusting for publication bias418 cited
2006Gender Differences in Patenting in the Academic Life Sciences409 cited
2013Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap397 cited
2007Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis336 cited
1998US and Non-US Submissions318 cited
1998Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?278 cited
1994Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language158 cited
1998Masking Author Identity in Peer Review104 cited
2013Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review103 cited

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

2003The myth of the double-blind review?102 cited

Cited by

2020Promotion of Women Physicians in Academic Medicine67 cited
2022The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review59 cited
2017The peer review gap: A longitudinal case study of gendered publishing and occupational patterns in a female-rich discipline, Western North America (1974–2016)51 cited
2019The proportion of male and female editors in women’s health journals: A critical analysis and review of the sex gap,45 cited
2018The Role of Gender in Publication in The Journal of Pediatrics 2015-2016: Equal Reviews, Unequal Opportunities39 cited
2021Gender Gap in Neurology Research Authorship (1946–2020)39 cited
2017A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review38 cited
2021Gender disparity in critical care publications: a novel Female First Author Index35 cited
2020Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing33 cited
2022Peer review in funding-by-lottery: A systematic overview and expansion30 cited
2019Are scientific editors reliable gatekeepers of the publication process?28 cited
2020Guest Editorial Introduction: Gender, Equity, and the Peer Review Process at the Journal of Field Archaeology25 cited
2022Incentives for Research Effort: An Evolutionary Model of Publication Markets with Double-Blind and Open Review20 cited
2015Is there bias in editorial choice? Yes17 cited
2018Authors and editors assort on gender and geography in high-rank ecological publications17 cited
2014Journals weigh up double-blind peer review15 cited