SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

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

How blind is blind review? · Study

ArticleShelves

ArticleHow blind is blind review?

Stephen J. Ceci1984

Article1984

How blind is blind review?

Stephen J. Ceci · Douglas P. Peters

125 citations·0/0 files stored·American Psychologist

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Psychology Research and Bibliometrics Academic Writing and Publishing Meta-analysis and systematic reviews

Abstract

No abstract was published for this record.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 125 citations exist upstream.

References

1982Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again 1978The scientific publication system in social science 1980Manuscript characteristics influencing reviewers' decisions.1982Barriers to scientific contributions: The author's formula 1980Recognition of Authors in Blind Review of Manuscripts 1981Pernicious publication practices 1982Publication, politics, and scientific progress 1982Perhaps it was right to reject the resubmitted manuscripts

Cited by

1988Creativity research: Originality, utility, and integration 2019The cases for and against double-blind reviews 1999The Review Process at PSPB: Correlates of Interreviewer Agreement and Manuscript Acceptance 1991Reliability, fairness, objectivity and other inappropriate goals in peer review 1986Anonymous reviewing and the peer-review process.2011Subjective Performance and the Value of Blind Evaluation

Related works

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

1991Reliability, fairness, objectivity and other inappropriate goals in peer reviewarticle · 7 shared references 1991Referee agreement in contextarticle · 7 shared references 1991In praise of randomnessarticle · 7 shared references 1991Does group discussion contribute reliability of complex judgments?article · 7 shared references 2003Discovery and communication of important marketing findingsarticle · 5 shared references 1991The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigationarticle · 4 shared references

Details

Year1984

Typearticle

Published1984-01-01

VenueAmerican Psychologist

ISSN-L0003-066X

Languageen

Citations125

Files0 public / 0

ShelfPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Identifiers

doi10.1037//0003-066x.39.12.1491

openalex_workW2000386988

Links

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.

2001Evaluating outcomes: Empirical tools for effective practice.

2006Editorial boards in accounting: The power and the glory