SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Impact of author characteristics on outcomes of single- versus double-blind peer review: a systematic review of comparative studies in scientific abstracts and publications
16 references·0 citing·40 second hop
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)Impact of author characteristics on outco…Double‐blind peer review affects reviewer ratings and editor decisions at an ecology journal (2023)Double‐blind peer review affe…Nobel and Novice: Author Prominence Affects Peer Review (2022)Nobel and Novice: Author Prom…PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2021)PRISMA 2020 explanation and e…Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution (2019)Gender differences in peer re…Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review (2017)Reviewer bias in single- vers…The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review (2016)The Effects of Double-Blind v…Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige (2016)Single-blind vs Double-blind …Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors (2015)Ensuring the Quality, Fairnes…Bias in peer review (2012)Bias in peer reviewDoes double-blind review benefit female authors? (2008)Does double-blind review bene…Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors (2007)Double-blind review favours i…Single- versus double-blind reviewing (2006)Single- versus double-blind r…Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance (2006)Effect of Blinded Peer Review…Gender bias in the refereeing process? (2002)Gender bias in the refereeing…Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Effect of Blinding and Unmask…The Effects of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review (1994)The Effects of Blinding on Ac…Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system (1971)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)Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of “Blind” Auditions on Female Musicians (2000)Women in Academic Science (2014)The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review (1990)Peer Review (1994)What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal? (1998)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)A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine (1992)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises (1998)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management (2015)Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas (2016)Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories (2019)Nepotism and sexism in peer-review (1997)US and Non-US Submissions (1998)Testing and adjusting for publication bias (2001)Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science (2011)Peer Review in Health Sciences (1999)Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice (2016)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 emergent role of artificial intelligence, natural learning processing, and large language models in higher education and research (2023)Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students (2012)Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science (2013)Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM (2019)Peer review and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals (2021)Women and Global South strikingly underrepresented among top‐publishing ecologists (2021)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)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)The limitations to our understanding of peer review (2020)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2021PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews12,409 cited
  • 2012Bias in peer review1,111 cited
  • 2017Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review631 cited
  • 2007Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors569 cited
  • 2016The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review425 cited
  • 1998Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review284 cited
  • 2006Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance250 cited
  • 2016Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige192 cited
  • 2019Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution189 cited
  • 1994The Effects of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review164 cited
  • 2015Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors161 cited
  • 2022Nobel and Novice: Author Prominence Affects Peer Review146 cited
  • 2002Gender bias in the refereeing process?141 cited
  • 2006Single- versus double-blind reviewing118 cited
  • 2023Double‐blind peer review affects reviewer ratings and editor decisions at an ecology journal

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

104 cited
  • 2008Does double-blind review benefit female authors?84 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.