References

• 2017Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review605 cited
• 2007Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors551 cited
• 2002The history of the peer-review process445 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
• 2007The ups and downs of peer review296 cited
• 2017A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review293 cited
• 1998Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review281 cited
• 1990The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review261 cited
• 1999Opening up BMJ peer review191 cited
• 1998Who Reviews the Reviewers? Feasibility of Using a Fictitious Manuscript to Evaluate Peer Reviewer Performance141 cited
• 2009Rejecting and resisting Nobel class discoveries: accounts by Nobel Laureates133 cited
• 1990The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.113 cited
• 2019Guidelines for open peer review implementation