SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
How blind is blind review?
8 references·16 citing·40 second hop
How blind is blind review? (1984)How blind is blind review?Publication, politics, and scientific progress (1982)Publication, politics, and sc…Perhaps it was right to reject the resubmitted manuscripts (1982)Perhaps it was right to rejec…Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Peer-review practices of psyc…Barriers to scientific contributions: The author's formula (1982)Barriers to scientific contri…Pernicious publication practices (1981)Pernicious publication practi…Recognition of Authors in Blind Review of Manuscripts (1980)Recognition of Authors in Bli…Manuscript characteristics influencing reviewers' decisions. (1980)Manuscript characteristics in…The scientific publication system in social science (1978)The scientific publication sy…Double-blind peer review of manuscripts: opportunities, challenges, and way forward (2020)Double-blind peer review of m…The cases for and against double-blind reviews (2019)The cases for and against dou…Death of the Salesman but Not the Sales Force: How Interested Promotion Skews Scientific Valuation (2019)Death of the Salesman but Not…Blind Peer Review by Academic Journals (2016)Blind Peer Review by Academic…Subjective Performance and the Value of Blind Evaluation (2011)Subjective Performance and th…Editorial boards in accounting: The power and the glory (2006)Editorial boards in accountin…Evaluating outcomes: Empirical tools for effective practice. (2001)Evaluating outcomes: Empirica…The Bias of Sighted Reviewers in Research Proposal Evaluation: A Comparative Analysis of Blind and Open Review in Korea (2000)The Bias of Sighted Reviewers…The Review Process at PSPB: Correlates of Interreviewer Agreement and Manuscript Acceptance (1999)The Review Process at PSPB: C…Gate-keepers or judges: peer reviews in construction management (1999)Gate-keepers or judges: peer …The eunuch's tale: Reviewing reviewed (1995)The eunuch's tale: Reviewing …Peer Review and Evaluation of R&D Impacts (1993)Peer Review and Evaluation of…Reliability, fairness, objectivity and other inappropriate goals in peer review (1991)Reliability, fairness, object…Referee agreement in context (1991)Referee agreement in contextCreativity research: Originality, utility, and integration (1988)Creativity research: Original…Anonymous reviewing and the peer-review process. (1986)Anonymous reviewing and the p…Manuscript Characteristics Which Influence Acceptance for Management and Social Science Journals (1977)The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation (1991)Replications and extensions in marketing: Rarely published but quite contrary (1994)Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science (1957)Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. (1977)The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. (1977)Peer Review Verfahren auf dem Prüfstand / Peer Review Research – Reviewed (2004)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2006)Editorial (2007)Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system (1971)Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit (1992)Quality in research and the significance of community assessment and peer review: education’s idiosyncrasy (2007)Faculty Mentors’, Graduate Students’, and Performance-Based Assessments of Students’ Research Skill Development (2014)A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales (1960)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)Statistical principles in experimental design. (1962)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)Toward an experimental ecology of human development. (1977)Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. (1995)Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Sustainability (2011)The Significance of Insecure and Disorganized Attachment for Children’s Internalizing Symptoms: A Meta-Analytic Study (2012)THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS (1963)Psychotherapy outcome research: Methods for reporting variability and evaluating clinical significance (1984)Creativity and Education. (2008)Milieus of Creativity: The Role of Places, Environments, and Spatial Contexts (2009)More than appropriateness and novelty: Judges’ criteria of assessing creative products in science tasks (2014)The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. (1968)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science (2011)Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science (2013)Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review (2017)Perspectives on Medical Education: three changes in our guidelines to make authors’ and reviewers’ lives easier (2020)Impact of COVID-19 on longitudinal ophthalmology authorship gender trends (2021)Metrics and methods in the evaluation of prestige bias in peer review: A case study in computer systems conferences (2022)Discovery and communication of important marketing findings (2003)The Air We Breathe: A Critical Look at Practices and Alternatives in the Peer-Review Process (2009)We Have to Break Up (2009)Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. (2008)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1982Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again1,071 cited
  • 1978The scientific publication system in social science247 cited
  • 1980Manuscript characteristics influencing reviewers' decisions.182 cited
  • 1982Barriers to scientific contributions: The author's formula152 cited
  • 1980Recognition of Authors in Blind Review of Manuscripts86 cited
  • 1981Pernicious publication practices83 cited
  • 1982Publication, politics, and scientific progress51 cited
  • 1982Perhaps it was right to reject the resubmitted manuscripts41 cited

Cited by

  • 1988Creativity research: Originality, utility, and integration105 cited
  • 2019The cases for and against double-blind reviews65 cited
  • 1999The Review Process at PSPB: Correlates of Interreviewer Agreement and Manuscript Acceptance61 cited
  • 1991Reliability, fairness, objectivity and other inappropriate goals in peer review55 cited
  • 1986Anonymous reviewing and the peer-review process.52 cited
  • 2011Subjective Performance and the Value of Blind Evaluation45 cited
  • 2001Evaluating outcomes: Empirical tools for effective practice.

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

38 cited
  • 2006Editorial boards in accounting: The power and the glory24 cited
  • 1993Peer Review and Evaluation of R&D Impacts19 cited
  • 1995The eunuch's tale: Reviewing reviewed17 cited
  • 2000The Bias of Sighted Reviewers in Research Proposal Evaluation: A Comparative Analysis of Blind and Open Review in Korea14 cited
  • 2016Blind Peer Review by Academic Journals13 cited
  • 1999Gate-keepers or judges: peer reviews in construction management13 cited
  • 2020Double-blind peer review of manuscripts: opportunities, challenges, and way forward13 cited
  • 1991Referee agreement in context12 cited
  • 2019Death of the Salesman but Not the Sales Force: How Interested Promotion Skews Scientific Valuation11 cited