SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Double-blind reviewing
4 references·4 citing·27 second hop
Double-blind reviewing (2009)Double-blind reviewingSingle- versus double-blind reviewing (2006)Single- versus double-blind r…Impact of double-blind reviewing on SIGMOD publication rates (2006)Impact of double-blind review…Experiences from the Sigcomm 2005 European shadow PC experiment (2005)Experiences from the Sigcomm …The myth of the double-blind review? (2003)The myth of the double-blind …Analyzing Cyber Security Research Practices through a Meta-Research Framework (2023)Analyzing Cyber Security Rese…Mapping the Landscape of Peer Review in Computing Education Research (2020)Mapping the Landscape of Peer…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…Peer Review (1994)The peer‐review process (2002)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)Are women prejudiced against women? (1968)Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system (1971)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)Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions (2021)Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? (2000)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)Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports (1998)Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. (2014)Surfacing Inequities and Their Broader Implications in the CS Education Research Community (2022)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)A manifesto for reproducible science (2017)The preregistration revolution (2018)Findings and implications from data mining the IMC review process (2012)“Flawed, but like democracy we don’t have a better system”: The Experts’ Insights on the Peer Review Process of Evaluating Security Papers (2022)Publish and perish (2007)Uncovering Latent Biases in Text: Method and Application to Peer Review (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2006Single- versus double-blind reviewing118 cited
  • 2003The myth of the double-blind review?102 cited
  • 2006Impact of double-blind reviewing on SIGMOD publication rates26 cited
  • 2005Experiences from the Sigcomm 2005 European shadow PC experiment17 cited

Cited by

  • 2017Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review631 cited
  • 2020Mapping the Landscape of Peer Review in Computing Education Research13 cited
  • 2017Single versus Double Blind Reviewing at WSDM 201710 cited
  • 2023Analyzing Cyber Security Research Practices through a Meta-Research Framework9 cited

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