SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Masking Author Identity in Peer Review
2 references·16 citing·51 second hop
Masking Author Identity in Peer Review (1998)Masking Author Identity in Peer ReviewDoes Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality? (1998)Does Masking Author Identity …The Effects of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review (1994)The Effects of Blinding on Ac…Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal (2016)Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer…Use of double‐blind peer review to increase author diversity (2014)Use of double‐blind peer revi…Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study (2014)Impact of peer review on repo…Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities (2013)Views on the peer review syst…Alternatives to Peer Review: Novel Approaches for Research Evaluation (2011)Alternatives to Peer Review: …Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals (2008)Blinding in peer review: the …To Identify or Not to Identify: A Theoretical Model of Receiver Responses to Anonymous Communication (2007)To Identify or Not to Identif…To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer (2006)To blind or not to blind? Wha…The distribution of forensic journals, reflections on authorship practices, peer-review and role of the impact factor (2006)The distribution of forensic …Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2006)Editorial peer review for imp…Nurse editors' views on the peer review process (2005)Nurse editors' views on the p…An International Survey of Nurse Editors' Roles and Practices (2005)An International Survey of Nu…Incidence and Nature of Unblinding by Authors: Our Experience at Two Radiology Journals with Double-Blinded Peer Review Policies (2002)Incidence and Nature of Unbli…Evidence on peer review—scientific quality control or smokescreen? (1999)Evidence on peer review—scien…Masking, Blinding, and Peer Review: The Blind Leading the Blinded (1998)Masking, Blinding, and Peer R…Freedom and Responsibility in Medical Publication (1998)Freedom and Responsibility in…Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of “Blind” Auditions on Female Musicians (2000)Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students (2012)Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science (2013)The peer review gap: A longitudinal case study of gendered publishing and occupational patterns in a female-rich discipline, Western North America (1974–2016) (2017)Promotion of Women Physicians in Academic Medicine (2020)The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review (2022)In The Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power. (1989)Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory (1994)Social networking site or social surveillance site? Understanding the use of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relationships (2010)Credibility of online reviews and initial trust (2012)The Implications of Stigma and Anonymity for Self-Disclosure in Health Blogs (2013)EU 7 FP project Governing urban divercity: Creating social cohesion, social mobility and economic performance in today’s hyper-diversified cities (DIVERCITIES) – The case of Warsaw (2017)Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: implications for the conduct of meta-analyses. (1999)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)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)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine (1992)Testing and adjusting for publication bias (2001)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes (2010)How to make more published research true (2015)Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial (2015)Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review (2019)A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes (1976)Nepotism and sexism in peer-review (1997)Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science (2011)Trouble in Paradise: Problems in Academic Research Co-authoring (2015)Hidden connections: Network effects on editorial decisions in four computer science journals (2017)Fragments of peer review: A quantitative analysis of the literature (1969-2015) (2018)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Effects of Editorial Peer Review (2002)Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors (2007)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ (2020)Positive-Outcome Bias and Other Limitations in the Outcome of Research Abstracts Submitted to a Scientific Meeting (1998)US and Non-US Submissions (1998)A randomized controlled study of reviewer bias against an unconventional therapy (2000)Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. (2008)Gender Effects in the Peer Reviews of Grant Proposals: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Comparing Traditional and Multilevel Approaches (2009)Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system (1977)Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) (2004)Gender diversity of editorial boards and gender differences in the peer review process at six journals of ecology and evolution (2019)Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review (2020)The Influence of Social Presence on Students’ Satisfaction toward Online Course (2020)A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction (1992)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals (2012)A Stronger Post-Publication Culture Is Needed for Better Science (2014)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1998Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?278 cited
  • 1994The Effects of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review164 cited

Cited by

  • 2014Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study103 cited
  • 2013Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities100 cited
  • 1999Evidence on peer review—scientific quality control or smokescreen?97 cited
  • 2007To Identify or Not to Identify: A Theoretical Model of Receiver Responses to Anonymous Communication88 cited
  • 2008Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals86 cited
  • 2006Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies74 cited
  • 2014Use of double‐blind peer review to increase author diversity68 cited
  • 2011Alternatives to Peer Review: Novel Approaches for Research Evaluation68 cited
  • 2006The distribution of forensic journals, reflections on authorship practices, peer-review and role of the impact factor66 cited
  • 2006To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer64 cited
  • 1998Freedom and Responsibility in Medical Publication60 cited
  • 1998Masking, Blinding, and Peer Review: The Blind Leading the Blinded

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

58 cited
  • 2002Incidence and Nature of Unblinding by Authors: Our Experience at Two Radiology Journals with Double-Blinded Peer Review Policies50 cited
  • 2005An International Survey of Nurse Editors' Roles and Practices46 cited
  • 2005Nurse editors' views on the peer review process44 cited
  • 2016Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal37 cited