Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Double-Blind Refereeing

Leon Jay Gleser · Michael D. Perlman · Nancy M. Reid · Kathryn Roeder

21 citations0/0 files storedStatistical Science

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

Publishing and Scholarly Communication Academic Writing and Publishing Psychology Research and Bibliometrics

Abstract

This report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Double-Blind Refereeing was presented to the IMS Council in August 1992. It summarizes arguments for and against blinding referees to the identity of the authors and suggests an experiment to evaluate the process.

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 — 21 citations exist upstream.

References

1968The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered.1977Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system 1971Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system 1968Are women prejudiced against women?1972The Ortega Hypothesis 1978Evaluating psychological research reports: Dimensions, reliability, and correlates of quality judgments.1974Peer review in biomedical publication 1978Editorial Policies and Practices Among Leading Journals in Four Scientific Fields

Cited by

2022Incentives for Research Effort: An Evolutionary Model of Publication Markets with Double-Blind and Open Review 2016Blind Peer Review by Academic Journals 2004The false ‘Ortega Hypothesis’: a literature science case study

Explore the map →

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

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