References
- 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 4 6.
- Darling ES. Use of double-blind peer review to increase author diversity Conserv Biol 2014
- Link AM. US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias JAMA. 1998 280 246 7.
- Moss-Racusin CA Dovidio JF Brescoll VL Graham MJ Handelsman J. Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012 109 16474 9.
- Wenneras C Wold A. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature 1997 387 341 3.
- Lee CJ Sugimoto CR Zhang G Cronin B. Bias in peer review J Am Soc Inform Sci Tech 2013 64 2 17.
- Baggs JG Broome ME Dougherty MC Freda MC Kearney MH. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals J Adv Nurs 2008 64 131 8.
- Ho RC Mak KK Tao R Lu Y Day JR Pan F. Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities BMC Med Res Methodol 2013 13 74
- Jagsi R Bennett KE Griffith KA DeCastro R Grace C Holliday E. Attitudes toward blinding of peer review and perceptions of efficacy within a small biomedical specialty Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014 89 940 6.
- Moylan EC Harold S O'Neill C Kowalczuk MK. Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer? BMC Pharmacol Toxicol 2014 15 55
- Ware M. Peer review in scholarly journals: an international study of the perspective of the scholarly community 2008 Bristol Mark Ware Consulting
- Working double-blind. Nature 2008 451 605 6.
- Working double-blind [corrected] Nature Blog 2008 [updated 2008 February 6; cited 28 November 2014]. Available from: http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2008/02/working_doubleblind.html.
- Cleary JD Alexander B. Blind versus nonblind review: survey of selected medical journals Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1988 22 601 2.
- Pitkin RM. Blinded manuscript review: an idea whose time has come? Obstet Gynecol. 1995 85 781 2.
- Cho MK Justice AC Winker MA Berlin JA Waeckerle JF Callaham ML. Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators JAMA. 1998 280 243 5.
- 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 280 240 2.
- 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 280 234 7.
- Garvalov BK. Who stands to lose from double-blind review? Nature 2008 452 28
- Jarrad F. Conservation biology enacts double-blind peer review SCB News Blog 2014 [updated 2014 October 7; cited 28 November 2014]. Available from: http://www.conbio.org/publications/scb-news-blog/conservation-biology-enacts-double-blind-peer-review.
- Double-blind peer review Nat Geosci 2013 6 413
- Double-blind peer review Nat Nanotechnol 2014 9 869
- Cressey D. Journals weigh up double-blind peer review Nature News 2014 [updated 2014 July 15; cited 28 November 2014]. Available from: http://www.nature.com/news/journals-weigh-up-double-blind-peer-review-1.15564
- Katz DS Proto AV Olmsted WW. Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002 179 1415 17.
- McNutt RA Evans AT Fletcher RH Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial JAMA. 1990 263 1371 6.
- Webb TJ O'Hara B Freckleton RP. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? Trends Ecol Evol 2008 23 351 3.