Literature DB >> 25370422

Double-blind under review.

Alastair Brown1.   

Abstract

Mesh：

Year:  2014        PMID： 25370422     DOI： 10.1038/nnano.2014.265

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol        ISSN： 1748-3387            Impact factor:   39.213


× No keyword cloud information.
  6 in total

Review 1.  Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review.

Authors:  Tom Jefferson; Philip Alderson; Elizabeth Wager; Frank Davidoff
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-06-05       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer.

Authors:  Glenn Regehr; Georges Bordage
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 6.251

3.  Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  F Godlee; C R Gale; C N Martyn
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-07-15       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Attitudes toward blinding of peer review and perceptions of efficacy within a small biomedical specialty.

Authors:  Reshma Jagsi; Katherine Egan Bennett; Kent A Griffith; Rochelle DeCastro; Calley Grace; Emma Holliday; Anthony L Zietman
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2014-07-08       Impact factor: 7.038

5.  Use of double-blind peer review to increase author diversity.

Authors:  E S Darling
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2014-07-04       Impact factor: 6.560

6.  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
  6 in total
  2 in total

1.  Double-blind peer review.

Authors: 
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2014-11-02       Impact factor: 39.213

2.  Double-blind peer review.

Authors: 
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 54.908
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.