Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

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

Incidence and Nature of Unblinding by Authors: Our Experience at Two Radiology Journals with Double-Blinded Peer Review Policies

11 references·14 citing·35 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

1998Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports334 cited
1998Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review281 cited
1998Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?278 cited
1990The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review261 cited
1990The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial216 cited
1994The Effects of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review164 cited
1994A Citation Analysis of the Impact of Blinded Peer Review120 cited
1998Masking Author Identity in Peer Review104 cited
1991How blind is blind review?65 cited
1999Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review64 cited
1998Masking, Blinding, and Peer Review: The Blind Leading the Blinded58 cited

Cited by

2017Peer Review: From “Sacred Ideals” to “Profane Realities”46 cited
2013On peer review in computer science: analysis of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvement45 cited
2016Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal37 cited
2009The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer-review process of an ophthalmic journal

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

32 cited

2014Attitudes Toward Blinding of Peer Review and Perceptions of Efficacy Within a Small Biomedical Specialty29 cited

2005Peer Review—The Newcomers' Perspective27 cited

2022“Flawed, but like democracy we don’t have a better system”: The Experts’ Insights on the Peer Review Process of Evaluating Security Papers15 cited

2016Understanding and supporting anonymity policies in peer review14 cited

2016Blind Peer Review by Academic Journals13 cited

2007Impact factor statistics and publication practice: What can we learn?12 cited

2004Peer‐Reviewed Publication: A View from Inside10 cited

2003The Fallacy of Double-Blinded Peer Review9 cited

2009Peer‐review for the peer‐review system8 cited

2020Peer review practices by medical imaging journals8 cited