Warning: Undefined array key "mm" in /www/wwwroot/www.ai-bt.com/si.php on line 10 Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /www/wwwroot/www.ai-bt.com/si.php on line 10 Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige.

Literature DB >> 27673310

Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige.

Kanu Okike¹, Kevin T Hug², Mininder S Kocher³, Seth S Leopold².

Abstract

Mesh：

Year: 2016 PMID： 27673310 DOI： 10.1001/jama.2016.11014

Source DB: PubMed Journal: JAMA ISSN： 0098-7484 Impact factor: 56.272

Keyword Cloud
Cited

× No keyword cloud information.

18 in total

1. Editorial: CORR ^® Will Change to Double-blind Peer Review-What Took Us So Long to Get There?

Authors: Seth S Leopold
Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 4.176

2. Prestige bias--an old, untreated enemy of the peer-review process.

Authors: G Bazoukis
Journal: Hippokratia Date: 2020 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 0.471

3. Glass Half Full.

Authors: J S Ross
Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 3.825

Review 4. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.

Authors: Jonathan P Tennant; Jonathan M Dugan; Daniel Graziotin; Damien C Jacques; François Waldner; Daniel Mietchen; Yehia Elkhatib; Lauren B Collister; Christina K Pikas; Tom Crick; Paola Masuzzo; Anthony Caravaggi; Devin R Berg; Kyle E Niemeyer; Tony Ross-Hellauer; Sara Mannheimer; Lillian Rigling; Daniel S Katz; Bastian Greshake Tzovaras; Josmel Pacheco-Mendoza; Nazeefa Fatima; Marta Poblet; Marios Isaakidis; Dasapta Erwin Irawan; Sébastien Renaut; Christopher R Madan; Lisa Matthias; Jesper Nørgaard Kjær; Daniel Paul O'Donnell; Cameron Neylon; Sarah Kearns; Manojkumar Selvaraju; Julien Colomb
Journal: F1000Res Date: 2017-07-20

Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige.

1. Editorial: CORR ^® Will Change to Double-blind Peer Review-What Took Us So Long to Get There?

2. Prestige bias--an old, untreated enemy of the peer-review process.

3. Glass Half Full.

Review 4. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.

5. Nobel and novice: Author prominence affects peer review.

6. Not the Last Word: Planck's Principle and the Case for Pseudonymous Publication.

Review 7. Peer review: single-blind, double-blind, or all the way-blind?

8. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review.

9. The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications.

Review 10. The changing forms and expectations of peer review.