SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Improving publication quality by reducing bias with double-blind reviewing and author response
6 references·0 citing·25 second hop
Improving publication quality by reducing bias with double-blind reviewing and author response (2008)Improving publication quality by reducing…Frequently-asked questions about double-blind reviewing (2007)Frequently-asked questions ab…Editorial (2007)EditorialSingle- versus double-blind reviewing (2006)Single- versus double-blind r…Impact of double blind reviewing on SIGMOD publication (2006)Impact of double blind review…The myth of the double-blind review? (2003)The myth of the double-blind …Nepotism and sexism in peer-review (1997)Nepotism and sexism in peer-r…Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable (1994)The peer‐review process (2002)Wikipedia and academic peer review (2008)Audience selection for on-line brand advertising (2009)Citation‐based bootstrapping for large‐scale author disambiguation (2012)The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review (2016)Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system (1971)Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. (1994)Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. (1995)Peer review (2014)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)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)Are women prejudiced against women? (1968)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants (2010)Emerging trends in peer review—a survey (2015)Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions (2021)Sex Effects on Evaluation (1980)Chance and Consensus in Peer Review (1981)Performance in Competitive Environments: Gender Differences (2003)The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics (2007)Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science (2011)Liquid Publications: Scientific Publications meet the Web (2007)Publish and perish (2007)Uncovering Latent Biases in Text: Method and Application to Peer Review (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1997Nepotism and sexism in peer-review1,347 cited
  • 2006Single- versus double-blind reviewing118 cited
  • 2003The myth of the double-blind review?102 cited
  • 2007Editorial71 cited
  • 2006Impact of double blind reviewing on SIGMOD publication29 cited
  • 2007Frequently-asked questions about double-blind reviewing7 cited

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.

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