Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

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

Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger".

11 references·4 citing·31 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

2006Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals794 cited
1999Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial415 cited
2002Effects of Editorial Peer Review347 cited
1998Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports334 cited
1998Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?278 cited
2000Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial261 cited
1990The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial216 cited
1999Opening up BMJ peer review191 cited
1999Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for Assessing Peer Reviews of Manuscripts177 cited
1999Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review64 cited
2006To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer64 cited

Cited by

2015Comparison of self-citation by peer reviewers in a journal with single-blind peer review versus a journal with open peer review15 cited
2019Towards the enhancement of quality publication practices in clinical psychological science13 cited
2023Peer reviewers' willingness to review, their recommendations and quality of reviews after the Finnish Medical Journal switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review

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

10 cited

2013Criticism of peer review and ways to improve it10 cited