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

Literature DB >> 31820012

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

Abstract

A scholarly peer review is the process whereby referees scrutinize research work or a manuscript within their field of expertise and decide on its acceptability for publication in a journal or scientific proceeding. Ideally, peer review is impartial. Among the many models of peer review, the single blind is currently the most adopted model in scientific journals. The double-blind model has been claimed to decrease bias, despite some difficulty in implementation.

Entities: Chemical

Keywords: Double-blind; International; Peer review; Publication; Research; Single-blind

Mesh：

Year: 2019 PMID： 31820012 DOI： 10.1007/s00192-019-04187-2

Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Urogynecol J ISSN： 0937-3462 Impact factor: 2.894

16 in total

Review 1. The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias.

Authors: Tobias Opthof; Ruben Coronel; Michiel J Janse
Journal: Cardiovasc Res Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 10.787

2. Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality.

Authors: Kevin C Chung; Melissa J Shauver; Sunitha Malay; Lin Zhong; Aaron Weinstein; Rod J Rohrich
Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 4.730

3. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance.

Authors: Joseph S Ross; Cary P Gross; Mayur M Desai; Yuling Hong; Augustus O Grant; Stephen R Daniels; Vladimir C Hachinski; Raymond J Gibbons; Timothy J Gardner; Harlan M Krumholz
Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-04-12 Impact factor: 56.272

4. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.

Authors: A C Justice; M K Cho; M A Winker; J A Berlin; D Rennie
Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-07-15 Impact factor: 56.272

5. Nature journals offer double-blind review.

Authors:
Journal: Nature Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 49.962

Review 6. Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review.

Authors: Samir Haffar; Fateh Bazerbachi; M Hassan Murad
Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2019-02-20 Impact factor: 7.616

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

Review 1. The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias.

2. Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality.

3. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance.

4. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.

5. Nature journals offer double-blind review.

Review 6. Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review.

7. Conflict of interest: what is the role of our professional societies?

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

9. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language.

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

1. Does origin of article impact citation metrics in Gynecologic Oncology?