266 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29138317)
1. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review.
Tomkins A; Zhang M; Heavlin WD
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2017 Nov; 114(48):12708-12713. PubMed ID: 29138317
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.
Budden AE; Tregenza T; Aarssen LW; Koricheva J; Leimu R; Lortie CJ
Trends Ecol Evol; 2008 Jan; 23(1):4-6. PubMed ID: 17963996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models.
Kowalczuk MK; Dudbridge F; Nanda S; Harriman SL; Patel J; Moylan EC
BMJ Open; 2015 Sep; 5(9):e008707. PubMed ID: 26423855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal.
O'Connor EE; Cousar M; Lentini JA; Castillo M; Halm K; Zeffiro TA
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol; 2017 Feb; 38(2):230-235. PubMed ID: 27856433
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Metrics and methods in the evaluation of prestige bias in peer review: A case study in computer systems conferences.
Frachtenberg E; McConville KS
PLoS One; 2022; 17(2):e0264131. PubMed ID: 35213600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Attitudes toward blinding of peer review and perceptions of efficacy within a small biomedical specialty.
Jagsi R; Bennett KE; Griffith KA; DeCastro R; Grace C; Holliday E; Zietman AL
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2014 Aug; 89(5):940-946. PubMed ID: 25035195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals.
Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH
J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 18764847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review.
Kern-Goldberger AR; James R; Berghella V; Miller ES
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2022 Jul; 227(1):43-50.e4. PubMed ID: 35120887
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [The recognition of peer reviewers activity: the potential promotion of a virtuous circle.].
Pierno A; Fruscio R; Bellani G
Recenti Prog Med; 2017 Sep; 108(9):355-359. PubMed ID: 28901342
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Nurse editors' views on the peer review process.
Kearney MH; Freda MC
Res Nurs Health; 2005 Dec; 28(6):444-52. PubMed ID: 16287058
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer.
Regehr G; Bordage G
Med Educ; 2006 Sep; 40(9):832-9. PubMed ID: 16925632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial.
Godlee F; Gale CR; Martyn CN
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):237-40. PubMed ID: 9676667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?
Al-Khatib A; Teixeira da Silva JA
Sci Eng Ethics; 2019 Feb; 25(1):293-321. PubMed ID: 28905258
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?
Teixeira da Silva JA; Al-Khatib A
Sci Eng Ethics; 2018 Feb; 24(1):275-285. PubMed ID: 28155093
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Double-blind peer review].
Fenyvesi T
Orv Hetil; 2002 Feb; 143(5):245-8. PubMed ID: 11875838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.
Schroter S; Tite L; Hutchings A; Black N
JAMA; 2006 Jan; 295(3):314-7. PubMed ID: 16418467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger".
Vinther S; Nielsen OH; Rosenberg J; Keiding N; Schroeder TV
Dan Med J; 2012 Aug; 59(8):A4479. PubMed ID: 22849979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The cases for and against double-blind reviews.
Cox AR; Montgomerie R
PeerJ; 2019; 7():e6702. PubMed ID: 30972261
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.
Wager E; Parkin EC; Tamber PS
BMC Med; 2006 May; 4():13. PubMed ID: 16734897
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Double- vs single-blind peer review effect on acceptance rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Ucci MA; D'Antonio F; Berghella V
Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM; 2022 Jul; 4(4):100645. PubMed ID: 35430413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
