The cases for and against double-blind reviews
To date, the majority of authors on scientific publications have been men. While much of this gender bias can be explained by historic sexism and discrimination, there is concern that women may still be disadvantaged by the peer review process if reviewers’ biases lead them to reject publications wi...
Main Authors: | Amelia R. Cox, Robert Montgomerie |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
PeerJ Inc.
2019-04-01
|
Series: | PeerJ |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://peerj.com/articles/6702.pdf |
Similar Items
-
Double blinding in peer review: is it worth the hype?
by: Colin Suen
Published: (2014-05-01) -
Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics
by: Barbara McGillivray, et al.
Published: (2018-08-01) -
Three common sources of error in peer review and how to minimize them
by: Lonnie Aarssen
Published: (2017-01-01) -
Emerging trends in peer review - a survey
by: Richard eWalker, et al.
Published: (2015-05-01) -
Reviewer Commentary: # Blended Learning and Sense of Community: A Comparative Analysis with Traditional and Fully Online Graduate Courses
by: Dan Eastmond
Published: (2004-08-01)