https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0369-9094
References
- Kelly J, Sadeghieh T, Adeli K. Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. EJIFCC. 2014;25(3):227–243.
- Gupta V, Coburn NG, Detsky AS. Reviewer blinding in peer review: perspectives from reviewers at three stages of their careers. Ann Surg. 2020;272(1):42–43.
- McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. JAMA. 1990;263(10):1371–1376.
- Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators. JAMA. 1998;280(3):240–242.
- Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2016;14(1):85.
- 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.
- 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.
- Primack RB, Ellwood E, Miller-Rushing AJ, Marrs R, Mulligan A. Do gender, nationality, or academic age affect review decisions? An analysis of submissions to the journal Biological Conservation. Biol Conserv. 2009;142(11):2415–2418.
- 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.
- Snodgrass R. Single- versus double-blind reviewing: an analysis of the literature. SIGMOD Rec. 2006;35(3):8–21.
- Roberts SG, Verhoef T. Double-blind reviewing at EvoLang 11 reveals gender bias†. J Language Evolution. 2016;1(2):163–167.
- 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.
- Hinton A, Lambert WM. Moving diversity, equity, and inclusion from opinion to evidence. Cell Rep Med. 2022;3(4):100619.
- Clarivate. Web of Science Journal Evaluation Process and Selection Criteria. Available from: https://clarivate.com/products/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-workflow-solutions/web-of-science/core-collection/editorial-selection-process/editorial-selection-process/. Accessed June 9, 2022.
- Elsevier. Scopus Content Policy and Selection. Available from: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/content/content-policy-and-selection. Accessed October 22, 2022.
- National Library of Medicine. Journal Selection for MEDLINE. Available from: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medline/medline_journal_selection.html. Accessed June 23, 2023.
- National Library of Medicine. MEDLINE: overview; 2022. Available from: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medline/medline_overview.html. Accessed June 13, 2023.
- Di Bitetti MS, Ferreras JA. Publish (in English) or perish: the effect on citation rate of using languages other than English in scientific publications. Ambio. 2017;46(1):121–127.
- Baron TH. ABC’s of writing medical papers in English. Korean J Radiol. 2012;13 Suppl 1:S1–11.
- Elsevier. Embase content coverage. Available from: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/embase-biomedical-research/coverage-and-content. Accessed October 22, 2022.
- Conroy G These are the 10 best countries for life sciences research; 2020. Available from: https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news-blog/ten-best-countries-life-sciences-research-rankings. Accessed October 22, 2022.
- Top 200 institutions in biomedical sciences; 2019. Available from: https://www.nature.com/nature-index/supplements/nature-index-2019-biomedical-sciences/tables/overall. Accessed October 22, 2022.
- Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(6):1369–1377.
- Gaudino M, Robinson NB, Di Franco A, et al. Effects of Experimental Interventions to Improve the Biomedical Peer-Review Process: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10(15):e019903.
- Kern-Goldberger AR, James R, Berghella V, Miller ES. The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022:63.
- National Library of Medicine. MEDLINE, PubMed, and PMC (PubMed Central): how are they different? Available from: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/difference.html. Accessed October 22, 2022.
- Smith AC, Merz L, Borden JB, Gulick CK, Kshirsagar AR, Bruna EM. Assessing the effect of article processing charges on the geographic diversity of authors using Elsevier’s “Mirror Journal” system. Quantitative Sci Studies. 2021;2(4):1123–1143.
- Ross-Hellauer T, Reichmann S, Cole NL, Fessl A, Klebel T, Pontika N. Dynamics of cumulative advantage and threats to equity in open science: a scoping review. Royal Soc Open Sci. 2022;9(1):211032.