REFERENCES
- Link AM, Link AM. US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA. 1998;280(3):246–247. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.246.
- Skopec M, Issa H, Reed J, Harris M. The role of geographic bias in knowledge diffusion: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020;5:2. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0088-0.
- Iverson C. US medical journal editors’ attitudes toward submissions from other countries. Sci Editor. 2002; 25(3):75–78.
- NSB NSF. Publication Output: US Trends and International Comparisons. Sci Eng Indic. 2020;2019.
- Opthof T, Coronel R, Janse MJ. The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias. Cardiovasc Res. 2002;56(3):339–346. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-6363(02)00712-5.
- Najjar W, Mouanness MA, Rameh G, Bazi T. International authorship in leading world journals on incontinence and pelvic floor disorders: is it truly international? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;241:104–108. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.08.017.
- Kelly J, Sadeghieh T, Adeli K. Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. EJIFCC. 2014;25:227–243.
- Van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1998;280(3):234–237. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.234.
- Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;280(3):237–240. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.237.
- Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, et al. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA. 2006;295(14):1675–1680. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.14.1675.
- Okike K, Hug KT, Kocher MS, Leopold SS. Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige. JAMA. 2016;316(12):1315–1316. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.11014.
- Budden AE, Tregenza T, Aarssen LW, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Lortie CJ. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol Evol. 2008;23(1):4–6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008.
- Tomkins A, Zhang M, Heavlin WD. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114(48):12708–12713. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114.
- Journal citation reports. Institute for Scientific Information TS. ed. Philadelphia, PA.
- Paraje G, Sadana R, Karam G. Public health. Increasing international gaps in health-related publications. Science. 2005;308(5724):959–960. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1108705.
- De Ranieri E, McGillivray B, Swaminathan S, Samarasinghe M, Gruen L. Analysis of uptake and outcome in author-selected single-blind vs double-blind peer review at nature journals. Presentation. 2017.
- Muula AS. Medical journalism and authorship in low income countries. Croat Med J. 2008;49(5):681–683. doi:https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2008.5.681.
- Cash-Gibson L, Rojas-Gualdron DF, Pericas JM, Benach J. Inequalities in global health inequalities research: a 50-year bibliometric analysis (1966-2015). PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0191901. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191901.
- Working double-blind. Nature. 2008;451(7179):605–606.
- Blank RM. The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from the American Economic Review. Am Econ Rev. 1991;81(5):1041–1067.
- Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D, The Peer Investigators A. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators. JAMA. 1998;280(3):240–242. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.240.
- Cho MK, Justice AC, Winker MA, et al. Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators. JAMA. 1998;280(3):243–245. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.243.