SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Impact of double-blind reviewing on SIGMOD publication rates
0 references·8 citing·32 second hop
Impact of double-blind reviewing on SIGMOD publication rates (2006)Impact of double-blind reviewing on SIGMO…Metrics and methods in the evaluation of prestige bias in peer review: A case study in computer systems conferences (2022)Metrics and methods in the ev…Uncovering Latent Biases in Text: Method and Application to Peer Review (2021)Uncovering Latent Biases in T…Single versus Double Blind Reviewing at WSDM 2017 (2017)Single versus Double Blind Re…Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review (2017)Reviewer bias in single- vers…Blind Peer Review by Academic Journals (2016)Blind Peer Review by Academic…Evaluating the Pros and Cons of Different Peer Review Policies via Simulation (2015)Evaluating the Pros and Cons …Double-blind reviewing (2009)Double-blind reviewingPublish and perish (2007)Publish and perishSocial Choice and Individual Values. (1951)Social Choice and Individual Values (1952)Bias in peer review (2012)The myth of the double-blind review? (2003)Experiences from the Sigcomm 2005 European shadow PC experiment (2005)Single- versus double-blind reviewing (2006)Mapping the Landscape of Peer Review in Computing Education Research (2020)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Nepotism and sexism in peer-review (1997)The Power of Not Knowing: On Ignorance, Inequity, and Transparency (2026)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? (2000)The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review (2016)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. (1968)Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond (2019)The limitations to our understanding of peer review (2020)The emergent role of artificial intelligence, natural learning processing, and large language models in higher education and research (2023)Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania: Reply (2000)Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination (2004)The Gender Wage Gap: Extent, Trends, and Explanations (2017)The academic status of reviewers predicts their language use (2023)Can peer review accolade awards motivate reviewers? A large-scale quasi-natural experiment (2024)Textual features of peer review predict top-cited papers: An interpretable machine learning perspective (2024)The Effects of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review (1994)Finding scientific gems with Google’s PageRank algorithm (2006)An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output (2005)Theory and practise of the g-index (2006)Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories (2018)Impact of author characteristics on outcomes of single- versus double-blind peer review: a systematic review of comparative studies in scientific abstracts and publications (2024)Double-blind peer review is detrimental to scientific integrity (2025)
this work references cited by second hop

References

No references inside the corpus for this window.

Cited by

  • 2017Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review631 cited
  • 2021Uncovering Latent Biases in Text: Method and Application to Peer Review28 cited
  • 2007Publish and perish18 cited
  • 2009Double-blind reviewing14 cited
  • 2016Blind Peer Review by Academic Journals13 cited
  • 2022Metrics and methods in the evaluation of prestige bias in peer review: A case study in computer systems conferences10 cited
  • 2017Single versus Double Blind Reviewing at WSDM 201710 cited
  • 2015Evaluating the Pros and Cons of Different Peer Review Policies via Simulation6 cited

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