References
- Al Kawi, M. Z. 1997. “History of Medical Records and Peer Review.” Annals of Saudi Medicine 17 (3): 277–8. doi:10.5144/0256-4947.1997.277.
- Barrett, K. E. 2019. “Towards Gender Equality in Scientific Careers: Are we There yet? … Are we There yet? … Are we There yet?” Physiology News Magazine 115: 46–7. doi:10.36866/pn.115.46.
- Belot, H. (2017). Blind Recruitment Trial to Boost Gender Equality Making Things Worse, Study Reveals. ABC News, June 29. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888.
- Bendels, M. H. K., R. Müller, D. Brueggmann, and D. A. Groneberg. 2018. “Gender Disparities in High-Quality Research Revealed by Nature Index Journals.” PLoS ONE 13 (1): Article e0189136. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0189136.
- Boyd, R. S. 2003. “Gender Shows Up in Writing.” Chicago Tribune, May 28. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2003-05-28-0305280247-story.html.
- Brown, N. E., Y. Horiuchi, M. Htun, and D. Samuels. 2020. “Gender Gaps in Perceptions of Political Science Journals.” PS: Political Science & Politics 53 (1): 114–21. doi:10.1017/S1049096519001227.
- Budden, A. E., T. Tregenza, L. W. Aarssen, J. Koricheva, and R. Leimu. 2008. “Double-Blind Review Favours Increased Representation of Female Authors.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23 (1): 4–6. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008.
- Cotropia, C. A., and L. Petherbridge. 2018. “Gender Disparity in Law Review Citation Rates.” William & Mary Law Review 59 (3): 771–812. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol59/iss3/2.
- DeRond, M., and A. N. Miller. 2005. “Publish or Perish: Bane or Boon of Academic Life?” Journal of Management Inquiry 14 (4): 321–9. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1056492605276850.
- Goldin, C., and C. Rouse. 2020. “Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of “Blind” Auditions on Female Musicians.” American Economic Review 90 (4): 715–41. doi:10.1257/aer.90.4.715.
- Haffar, S., F. Bazerbachi, and M. H. Murad. 2019. “Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review.” Mayo Clinic Proceedings 94 (4): 670–6. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.004.
- Hazen, B. T., S. E. Fawcett, J. A. Ogden, C. W. Autry, R. G. Richey, and A. E. Ellinger. 2016. “Addressing a Broken Peer Review Process.” The International Journal of Logistics Management 27 (3): 622–8. doi:10.1108/IJLM-09-2016-0201.
- Johnson, S. K., and J. F. Kirk. 2020. “Dual-Anonymization Yields Promising Results for Reducing Gender Bias: A Naturalistic Field Experiment of Applications for Hubble Space Telescope Time.” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 132 (1009): Article 034503. doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab6ce0.
- King, M. M., C. T. Bergstrom, S. J. Correll, J. Jacquet, and J. D. West. 2017. “Men Set Their own Cites High: Gender and Self-Citation Across Fields Over Time.” Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 3: 1–22. doi:10.1177/2378023117738903.
- Larivière, V., C. Ni, Y. Gingras, B. Cronin, and C. R. Sugimoto. 2013. “Bibliometrics: Global Gender Disparities in Science.” Nature 504: 211–3. doi:10.1038/504211a.
- Lee, C. J., C. R. Sugimoto, G. Zhang, and B. Cronin. 2012. “Bias in Peer Review.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1): 2–17. doi:10.1002/asi.22784.
- Lerchenmueller, M. J., O. Sorenson, and A. B. Jena. 2019. “Research: How Women Undersell Their Work.” Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/12/research-how-women-undersell-their-work
- Mainiero, L. A., and S. E. Sullivan. 2005. “Kaleidoscope Careers: An Alternative Explanation for the opt-out Evolution.” Academy of Management Executive 19 (1): 106–23.
- Mainiero, L. A., and S. E. Sullivan. 2006. The Opt-Out Revolt: Why People Are Leaving Companies to Create Kaleidoscope Careers. Boston: Davis-Black.
- O’Conner, E. E., M. Cousar, J. A. Lentini, M. Castillo, K. Halm, and T. A. Zeffrio. 2017. “Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal.” American Journal of Neuroradiology 38 (2): 230–5. doi:10.3174/ajnr.a5017.
- Okike, K., K. T. Hug, M. S. Kocher, and S. S. Leopold. 2016. “Single-Blind vs. Double-Blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige.” JAMA 316: 1315–6. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2556112.
- Onken, J., L. Chang, and F. Kanwal. 2021. “Unconscious Bias in Peer Review.” Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 19 (3): 419–20. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2020.12.001.
- RAND. 2005. Is There Gender Bias in Federal Grant Programs? [Research brief]. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/RB9147/RAND_RB9147.pdf.
- Rennie, D. 2016. “Make Peer Review Scientific: Thirty Years on from the First Congress on Peer Review, Drummond Rennie Reflects on the Improvements Brought About by Research Into the Process–and Calls for More.” Nature 535 (7610): 31+.
- Resnik, D. B., and S. A. Elmore. 2016. “Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.” Science Engineering Ethics 22 (1): 169–88. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9625-5.
- ScienceMatters. 2018. What is Triple Blindness? April 10. https://www.sciencematters.io/help/triple-blindness.
- Smith, R. 2006. “Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals.” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99 (4): 178–82. doi:10.1177/014107680609900414.
- Spier, R. 2002. “The History of the Peer-Review Process.” Trends in Biotechnology 20 (8): 357–8. doi:10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6.
- Squazzoni, F., G. Bravo, M. Farjam, A. Marusic, B. Mehmani, M. Willis, A. Birukou, P. Dondio, and F. Grimaldo. 2021. “Peer Review and Gender Bias: A Study on 145 Scholarly Journals.” Science Advances 7 (2): Article eabd0299. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abd0299.
- Street, C., and K. W. Ward. 2019. “Cognitive Bias in the Peer Review Process: Understanding a Source of Friction Between Reviewers and Researchers.” SIGMIS Database 50 (4): 52–70. doi:10.1145/3371041.3371046.
- Tvina, A., R. Spelley, and A. Palatnik. 2019. “Bias in the Peer Review Process: Can We Do Better?” Obstetrics & Gynecology 133 (6): 1081–83. doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000003260.
- Unpacking the Many Models of Peer Review New and Emerging: Interview with Pippa Smart. 2020. Scholastica Blog, October 12. https://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/models-peer-review-new-emerging/.
- Ware, M. 2008. “Peer Review in Scholarly Journals: Perspective of the Scholarly Community – An International Study.” Information Service & Use 28: 2.
- Watson, R. 2012. “Peer Review Under the Spotlight in the UK.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 68 (4): 718–20. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05932.x.
- Wennerås, C., and A. Wold. 1997. “Nepotism and Sexism in Peer-Review.” Nature 387: 341–3. doi:10.1038/387341a0.
- Wilson, R. 2012. Scholarly Publishing’s Gender Gap. The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 22. https://www.chronicle.com/article/scholarly-publishings-gender-gap/.