290 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9676666)
1. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial.
van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Smith R; Black N
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):234-7. PubMed ID: 9676666
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.
Justice AC; Cho MK; Winker MA; Berlin JA; Rennie D
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):240-2. PubMed ID: 9676668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review.
Van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Smith R; Black N
J Gen Intern Med; 1999 Oct; 14(10):622-4. PubMed ID: 10571708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.
McNutt RA; Evans AT; Fletcher RH; Fletcher SW
JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1371-6. PubMed ID: 2304216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study.
Alam M; Kim NA; Havey J; Rademaker A; Ratner D; Tregre B; West DP; Coleman WP
Br J Dermatol; 2011 Sep; 165(3):563-7. PubMed ID: 21623749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Are Reviewers' Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports.
Schriger DL; Kadera SP; von Elm E
Ann Emerg Med; 2016 Mar; 67(3):401-406.e6. PubMed ID: 26518378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effect of revealing authors' conflicts of interests in peer review: randomized controlled trial.
John LK; Loewenstein G; Marder A; Callaham ML
BMJ; 2019 Nov; 367():l5896. PubMed ID: 31694810
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review.
Fisher M; Friedman SB; Strauss B
JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):143-6. PubMed ID: 8015127
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality.
Chung KC; Shauver MJ; Malay S; Zhong L; Weinstein A; Rohrich RJ
Plast Reconstr Surg; 2015 Dec; 136(6):1369-1377. PubMed ID: 26273735
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial.
van Rooyen S; Delamothe T; Evans SJ
BMJ; 2010 Nov; 341():c5729. PubMed ID: 21081600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts.
Callaham ML; Baxt WG; Waeckerle JF; Wears RL
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):229-31. PubMed ID: 9676664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial.
van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Black N; Smith R
BMJ; 1999 Jan; 318(7175):23-7. PubMed ID: 9872878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Peer reviewers' willingness to review, their recommendations and quality of reviews after the Finnish Medical Journal switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review.
Parmanne P; Laajava J; Järvinen N; Harju T; Marttunen M; Saloheimo P
Res Integr Peer Rev; 2023 Oct; 8(1):14. PubMed ID: 37876004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer-review process of an ophthalmic journal.
Isenberg SJ; Sanchez E; Zafran KC
Br J Ophthalmol; 2009 Jul; 93(7):881-4. PubMed ID: 19211602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal.
Snell L; Spencer J
Med Educ; 2005 Jan; 39(1):90-7. PubMed ID: 15612905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
