Literature DB >> 24748039

Blind manuscript submission to reduce rejection bias?

Khaled Moustafa1.   

Abstract

Mesh：

Year:  2014        PMID： 24748039     DOI： 10.1007/s11948-014-9547-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics        ISSN： 1353-3452            Impact factor:   3.525


× No keyword cloud information.
  3 in total

1.  Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.

Authors:  Amber E Budden; Tom Tregenza; Lonnie W Aarssen; Julia Koricheva; Roosa Leimu; Christopher J Lortie
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2007-10-25       Impact factor: 17.712

2.  Double blind peer reviews are fairer and more objective, say academics.

Authors:  Zosia Kmietowicz
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-02-02

3.  Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students.

Authors:  Corinne A Moss-Racusin; John F Dovidio; Victoria L Brescoll; Mark J Graham; Jo Handelsman
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-09-17       Impact factor: 11.205
  3 in total
  4 in total

1.  Publishers: Save Authors' Time.

Authors:  Khaled Moustafa
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  Ethics in Publishing: Complexity Science and Human Factors Offer Insights to Develop a Just Culture.

Authors:  Tarcisio Abreu Saurin
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2015-11-25       Impact factor: 3.525

3.  Don't fall in common science pitfall!

Authors:  Khaled Moustafa
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2014-10-10       Impact factor: 5.753

4.  Publishing, Objectivity, and Prestige.

Authors:  Khaled Moustafa
Journal:  J Microbiol Biol Educ       Date:  2016-12-02
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.