SZodixStudyAcademic Library
DashboardShelvesOpen accessMy libraryInboxNotesWriteLearnAlerts
More
Ask your libraryNotificationsQuick citeReview
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance
2 references·16 citing·51 second hop
Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance (2006)Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract…Peer Review in Health Sciences (1999)Peer Review in Health SciencesUS and Non-US Submissions (1998)US and Non-US SubmissionsDouble‐blind peer review affects reviewer ratings and editor decisions at an ecology journal (2023)Double‐blind peer review affe…Responsible Conduct of Research (2022)Responsible Conduct of Resear…The state of population health research performance in the Middle East and North Africa: a meta-research study (2021)The state of population healt…The role of geographic bias in knowledge diffusion: a systematic review and narrative synthesis (2020)The role of geographic bias i…Guidelines for open peer review implementation (2019)Guidelines for open peer revi…Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution (2019)Gender differences in peer re…The changing forms and expectations of peer review (2018)The changing forms and expect…Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review (2018)Author-Reviewer Homophily in …What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)What is open peer review? A s…What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)What is open peer review? A s…Explicit Bias Toward High-Income-Country Research: A Randomized, Blinded, Crossover Experiment Of English Clinicians (2017)Explicit Bias Toward High-Inc…Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors (2015)Ensuring the Quality, Fairnes…Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial (2011)Effect of using reporting gui…Looking for Landmarks: The Role of Expert Review and Bibliometric Analysis in Evaluating Scientific Publication Outputs (2009)Looking for Landmarks: The Ro…The global spread of English, scientific communication and ESP: questions of equity, access and domain loss (2007)The global spread of English,…Statistical Reviewers Improve Reporting in Biomedical Articles: A Randomized Trial (2007)Statistical Reviewers Improve…Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. (1994)The Ecology of Language Evolution (2001)English for Research Publication Purposes (2012)Taiwanese Students’ Experiences and Attitudes towards English-Medium Courses in Tertiary Education (2014)3. English as a Global Language (2016)A bibliometric analysis of two decades of aromatherapy research (2017)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)Establishing a new journal for systematic review products (2012)Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review (2014)Strengthening the Reporting of Molecular Epidemiology for Infectious Diseases (STROME-ID): an extension of the STROBE statement (2014)Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (2006)Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought (2013)The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future (2018)AI-assisted peer review (2021)Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic (2021)Little Science, Big Science (1963)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Pandemic publishing: Medical journals strongly speed up their publication process for COVID-19 (2020)The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future (2024)The present and future of peer review: Ideas, interventions, and evidence (2025)Bias in peer review (2012)Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students (2012)Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science (2013)Peer review and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals (2021)Promoting inclusive metrics of success and impact to dismantle a discriminatory reward system in science (2021)Women and Global South strikingly underrepresented among top‐publishing ecologists (2021)The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. (1968)The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge (2007)How the entire scientific community can confront gender bias in the workplace (2018)The unequal impact of parenthood in academia (2021)Exploring Gender Bias in Six Key Domains of Academic Science: An Adversarial Collaboration (2023)Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system (1977)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications (2012)Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science (2020)Dynamics of cumulative advantage and threats to equity in open science: a scoping review (2022)The Logic of Scientific Discovery. (1959)Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. (1975)ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research (2004)Authorship and Responsibility in Health Sciences Research: A Review of Procedures for Fairly Allocating Authorship in Multi-Author Studies (2011)The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool (2024)Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis (2007)Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases (2011)Content Validity—Establishing and Reporting the Evidence in Newly Developed Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Instruments for Medical Product Evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report: Part 1—Eliciting Concepts for a New PRO Instrument (2011)Testing and adjusting for publication bias (2001)Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors (2007)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1998US and Non-US Submissions318 cited
  • 1999Peer Review in Health Sciences268 cited

Cited by

  • 2017What is open peer review? A systematic review453 cited
  • 2011Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial291 cited
  • 2017What is open peer review? A systematic review232 cited
  • 2022Responsible Conduct of Research223 cited
  • 2019Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution189 cited
  • 2018The changing forms and expectations of peer review179 cited
  • 2007The global spread of English, scientific communication and ESP: questions of equity, access and domain loss175 cited
  • 2018Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review169 cited
  • 2009Looking for Landmarks: The Role of Expert Review and Bibliometric Analysis in Evaluating Scientific Publication Outputs168 cited
  • 2015Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors161 cited
  • 2020The role of geographic bias in knowledge diffusion: a systematic review and narrative synthesis142 cited
  • 2017Explicit Bias Toward High-Income-Country Research: A Randomized, Blinded, Crossover Experiment Of English Clinicians

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

119 cited
  • 2007Statistical Reviewers Improve Reporting in Biomedical Articles: A Randomized Trial112 cited
  • 2021The state of population health research performance in the Middle East and North Africa: a meta-research study110 cited
  • 2023Double‐blind peer review affects reviewer ratings and editor decisions at an ecology journal104 cited
  • 2019Guidelines for open peer review implementation92 cited