Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige
Open accessAbstract
Most medical journals practice single-blind review 1 (authors' identities known to reviewers), but double-blind review (authors' identities masked to reviewers) may improve the quality of reviews. 2 Bias with single-blind review might be greatest in the setting of author or institutional prestige.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Double-anonymizing the peer-review process could help level the playing field for academics from marginalized groups, giving them a fairer chance to succeed.
“Double-anonymizing the peer-review process could also help level the playing field for academics from other marginalized groups, giving them a fairer chance to succeed, which, in turn, would promote diverse points of view in journal output and eventually expand the journal peer-reviewer pool to authors coming from such backgrounds (3–5, 19–23).”
From Nobel and novice: Author prominence affects peer review (2022) · cites this paper as [22]
The Results (Abstract) show that reviewers were more likely to recommend acceptance when prestigious authors’ names and institutions were visible than when they were masked. This supports the possibility that double-blind review can reduce a prestige-related advantage, but the study did not test outcomes for academics from marginalized groups or whether it increases diversity in journal output or the reviewer pool. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredDouble-anonymizing the peer-review process would promote diverse points of view in journal output.
“Double-anonymizing the peer-review process could also help level the playing field for academics from other marginalized groups, giving them a fairer chance to succeed, which, in turn, would promote diverse points of view in journal output and eventually expand the journal peer-reviewer pool to authors coming from such backgrounds (3–5, 19–23).”
From Nobel and novice: Author prominence affects peer review (2022) · cites this paper as [22]
The Results (Abstract; page not specified) show that reviewers were more likely to recommend accepting the same manuscript when prestigious authors’ identities were visible, supporting the proposed role of anonymity in reducing prestige bias. The paper does not examine whether double-anonymous review promotes diverse points of view in published journal output, so it does not support that further outcome. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredDouble-anonymizing the peer-review process would eventually expand the journal peer-reviewer pool to authors from marginalized backgrounds.
“Double-anonymizing the peer-review process could also help level the playing field for academics from other marginalized groups, giving them a fairer chance to succeed, which, in turn, would promote diverse points of view in journal output and eventually expand the journal peer-reviewer pool to authors coming from such backgrounds (3–5, 19–23).”
From Nobel and novice: Author prominence affects peer review (2022) · cites this paper as [22]
The Results (Abstract; page unavailable) show that reviewers were more likely to recommend acceptance when prestigious authors’ identities were visible, supporting a limited claim that anonymization can reduce prestige-related advantage. The paper does not examine authors from marginalized backgrounds, diversity in journal output, or whether double-anonymizing review would expand the peer-reviewer pool. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review
van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S. J. W., Smith, R. W., & Black, N. A. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.234 · Cited by 281 · see citing works
The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review: A Randomized Trial
McNutt, R. A. (1990) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03440100079012 · Cited by 261 · see citing works
The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial
Mcnutt, R. (1990) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.263.10.1371 · Cited by 216 · see citing works
The Effects of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review
Fisher, M. (1994) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03520020069019 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of a peer review
van Rooyen, S. (2013) · doi:10.1186/isrctn83117960 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Alam, M., Kim, N. A., Havey, J., Rademaker, A., Ratner, D., Tregre, B., West, D. P., & Coleman III, W. P. (2011) · British Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10432.x · Cited by 58 · see citing works
The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review
Fisher, M. (1994) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.272.2.143 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Peer review in scholarly journals
zz (2009) · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Snodgrass RT. Single-vs double-blind reviewing. SIGMOD Rec. 2006;35(3):8- 21. https://sigmodrecord.org/publications/sigmodRecord/0609/p08-article -snodgrass.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2016.
- McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. JAMA. 1990;263(10):1371-1376.
- Alam M, Kim NA, Havey J, et al. Blinded vs unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal. Br J Dermatol. 2011;165(3): 563-567.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review
Tomkins, A., Zhang, M., & Heavlin, W. D. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1707323114 · Cited by 605 · see citing works
The limitations to our understanding of peer review
Tennant, J. P., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2020) · Research Integrity and Peer Review · doi:10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1 · Cited by 384 · see citing works
A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review
Tennant, J., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., Elkhatib, Y., Collister, L., Pikas, C. K., Crick, T., et al. (2017) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.12037.1 · Cited by 289 · see citing works
Quantifying hierarchy and dynamics in US faculty hiring and retention
Wapman, K. H., Zhang, S., Clauset, A. J., & Larremore, D. B. (2022) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05222-x · Cited by 287 · see citing works
Responsible Conduct of Research
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2022) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197547090.001.0001 · Cited by 224 · see citing works
The changing forms and expectations of peer review
Horbach, S. P. J. M., & Halffman, W. (. W. (2018) · Research Integrity and Peer Review · doi:10.1186/s41073-018-0051-5 · Cited by 179 · see citing works
Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer ReviewPreprint
Murray, D., Siler, K., Larivière, V., Chan, W. M., Collings, A., Raymond, J. L., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2018) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/400515 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
Gender Differences in the Authorship of Original Research in Pediatric Journals, 2001-2016
Fishman, M., Williams, W. A., Goodman, D. M., & Ross, L. F. (2017) · The Journal of Pediatrics · doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.08.044 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Nobel and novice: Author prominence affects peer review
Huber, J., Inoua, S., Kerschbamer, R., König-Kersting, C., Palan, S., & Smith, V. L. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2205779119 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
What Do Editors Maximize? Evidence from Four Economics Journals
Card, D., & DellaVigna, S. (2020) · The Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/rest_a_00839 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Double‐blind peer review affects reviewer ratings and editor decisions at an ecology journal
Fox, C. W., Meyer, J., & Aimé, E. (2023) · Functional Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2435.14259 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications
Horbach, S. P. J. M., & Halffman, W. (2019) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2969-2 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
The cases for and against double-blind reviews
Cox, A. R., & Montgomerie, R. (2019) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.6702 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review
Kern‐Goldberger, A. R., James, R., Berghella, V., & Miller, E. S. (2022) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2022.01.030 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Does double‐blind peer review reduce bias? Evidence from a top computer science conference
Sun, M., Danfa, J. B., & Teplitskiy, M. (2021) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24582 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Open science and modified funding lotteries can impede the natural selection of bad science
Smaldino, P. E., Turner, M. A., & Kallens, P. C. (2019) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.190194 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant?
Horbach, S., & Halffman, W. (2019) · Minerva · doi:10.1007/s11024-019-09388-z · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Breaking Groupthink: Why Scientific Identity and Norms Mitigate Ideological Epistemology
Bavel, J. J. V., Reinero, D. A., Harris, E., Robertson, C. E., & Pärnamets, P. (2020) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2020.1722599 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Salimi, B., Parikh, H., Kayali, M., Getoor, L., Roy, S., & Suciu, D. (2020) · SIGMOD Conference · doi:10.1145/3318464.3389759 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Power in Editorial Positions: A Feminist Critique of Public Administration
Feeney, M. K., Carson, L., & Dickinson, H. (2018) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.12950 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
An experimental test of the effects of redacting grant applicant identifiers on peer review outcomes
Nakamura, R., Mann, L. S., Lindner, M. D., Braithwaite, J., Chen, M., Vancea, A., Byrnes, N., Durrant, V., & Reed, B. (2021) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.71368 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Wingen, T., Berkessel, J. B., & Dohle, S. (2022) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/25152459211070559 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review
Tennant, J., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., Elkhatib, Y., Collister, L., Pikas, C. K., Crick, T., et al. (2017) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.12037.2 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Bias against scientific novelty: A prepublication perspective
Liang, Z., Mao, J., & Li, G. (2022) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24725 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Gender disparity in critical care publications: a novel Female First Author Index
Chary, S., Amrein, K., Soeteman, D. I., Mehta, S., & Christopher, K. B. (2021) · Annals of Intensive Care · doi:10.1186/s13613-021-00889-3 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Gaudino, M. F. L., Robinson, N. B., Franco, A. D., Hameed, I., Naik, A., Demetres, M. R., Girardi, L. N., Frati, G., Fremes, S. E., & Biondi‐Zoccai, G. (2021) · Journal of the American Heart Association · doi:10.1161/jaha.120.019903 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
What do Editors Maximize? Evidence from Four Leading Economics Journals
Card, D., & DellaVigna, S. (2017) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w23282 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Uncovering Latent Biases in Text: Method and Application to Peer Review
Manzoor, E., & Shah, N. B. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i6.16608 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
An Overview of Post-Publication Peer Review
O’Sullivan, L., Ma, L., & Doran, P. (2021) · Scholarly Assessment Reports · doi:10.29024/sar.26 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Nobel and Novice: Author Prominence Affects Peer Review
Huber, J., M. Inoua, S., Kerschbamer, R., König-Kersting, C., Palan, S., & Smith, V. L. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4190976 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
Challenges and Controversies in Peer Review
Kusumoto, F. M., Bittl, J. A., Creager, M. A., Dauerman, H. L., Lala, A., McDermott, M. M., Turco, J. V., Taqueti, V. R., & Fuster, V. (2023) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2023.08.056 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Ucci, M. A., D'Antonio, F., & Berghella, V. (2022) · American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM · doi:10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100645 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Citation manipulation through citation mills and pre-print servers
Ibrahim, H., Liu, F., Zaki, Y., & Rahwan, T. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-88709-7 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Scholarly Merit in a Global Context: The Nation Gap in Psychological Science
Cheek, N. N. (2017) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691617708233 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Bianchi, F., & Squazzoni, F. (2022) · Science and Public Policy · doi:10.1093/scipol/scac027 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Walker, K. A. (2019) · Annals of the Entomological Society of America · doi:10.1093/aesa/saz066 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Elson, M., Huff, M., & Utz, S. (2020) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2515245919895419 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Gender trends in authorships and publication impact in Academic Radiology—a 10-year perspective
Molwitz, I., Yamamura, J., Ozga, A., Wedekind, I., Nguyen, T.-A., Wolf-Baldauf, L., Kamo, M., Zhao, J., Can, E., & Keller, S. (2021) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-021-07928-4 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Improving peer review: What journals can do
Haines, S. T., Baker, W. L., & DiDomenico, R. J. (2017) · American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy · doi:10.2146/ajhp170188 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Academic free speech or right-wing grievance?
Herbert, J. M. (2023) · Digital Discovery · doi:10.1039/d2dd00111j · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Triple-blind review as a solution to gender bias in academic publishing, a theoretical approach
Conklin, M., & Singh, S. (2022) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2022.2081681 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
An automated conflict of interest based greedy approach for conference paper assignment system
Pradhan, D. K., Chakraborty, J., Choudhary, P., & Nandi, S. (2020) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2020.101022 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Stelmakh, I., Shah, N. B., Singh, A., & Daumé, H. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3449149 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
The relevance of title, abstract, and keywords for scientific paper quality and potential impact
Chamorro-Padial, J., & Sánchez, R. M. R. (2023) · Multimedia Tools and Applications · doi:10.1007/s11042-023-14451-9 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Can peer review accolade awards motivate reviewers? A large-scale quasi-natural experiment
Yu, H., Liang, Y., & Xie, Y. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-04088-w · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Preserving the Quality of Scientific Research: Peer Review of Research Articles
Silva, P. U. K. D., & Vance, C. K. (2017) · Fascinating life sciences · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-50627-2_6 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Archives, Access and Artificial Intelligence
(2022) · Bielefeld University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783839455845 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Peer review: single-blind, double-blind, or all the way-blind?
Bazi, T. M. (2019) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-019-04187-2 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Eve, M. P., Neylon, C., O’Donnell, D. P., Moore, S., Gadie, R., Odeniyi, V., & Parvin, S. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108783521 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Breaking groupthink: Why scientific identity and norms mitigate ideological epistemologyPreprint
Bavel, J. J. V., Reinero, D. A., Harris, E., Robertson, C., & Pärnamets, P. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/734aj · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Geographical diversity of peer reviewers shapes author success
Dumlao, J. M. Z., & Teplitskiy, M. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2507394122 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Blinded by the person? Experimental evidence from idea evaluation
Dahlander, L., Thomas, A., Wallin, M. W., & Ångström, R. C. (2023) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.3501 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Reglas y consejos para ser un buen revisor por pares de manuscritos científicos
Gisbert, J. P., & Chaparro, M. (2022) · Gastroenterología y Hepatología · doi:10.1016/j.gastrohep.2022.03.005 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Research Methods: How to Perform an Effective Peer Review
Lu, E. P., Fischer, B. G., Plesac, M., & Olson, A. P. J. (2022) · Hospital Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/hpeds.2022-006764 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
The fading of status bias during the open peer review process
Sun, Z., Pang, K. L., & Li, Y. (2024) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2024.101528 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Horbach, S. P. J. M., Schneider, J. W., & Sainte‐Marie, M. H. (2022) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2022.101332 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Acceptance in Top Journals Shows Large Disparities across Name-inferred EthnicitiesPreprint
Peng, H. M., Lakhani, K. R., & Teplitskiy, M. (2021) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/mjbxg · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Archives, Access and Artificial Intelligence
Eve, M. P., Gadie, R., Odeniyi, V., & Parvin, S. (2022) · Digital humanities research · doi:10.14361/9783839455845 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Wingen, T., Berkessel, J. B., & Dohle, S. (2021) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/7n3mj · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Gershengorn, H. B., Vranas, K. C., Ouyang, D., Cheng, S. C., Rogers, A. J., Schweiger, L., Cooke, C. R., & Slatore, C. G. (2022) · Annals of the American Thoracic Society · doi:10.1513/annalsats.202203-277oc · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Frachtenberg, E., & McConville, K. S. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0264131 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Motivating and Maintaining Ethics, Equity, Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Expertise in Peer Review
Brain Health Alliance, Craig, A., Lee, C., Bala, N., & Taswell, C. (2022) · Brainiacs Journal of Brain Imaging And Computing Sciences · doi:10.48085/i5b147d9d · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Five Models of Science, Illustrating How Selection Shapes Methods
Smaldino, P. E. (2022) · University of Pittsburgh Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctv31djr2f.5 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
The Medical Student Race to Research
Maisner, R. S., Patel, I., Cadwell, J. B., Song, A., Ong, M., Goydos, C., Subramanian, S., Kapadia, K., & Lee, E. S. (2023) · Annals of Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1097/sap.0000000000003489 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Sverdlichenko, I., Xie, J. S., & Margolin, E. (2022) · Ethics Medicine and Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.jemep.2022.100758 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Resident Research Tips: Surviving and Thriving Within the Peer Review Process
Garg, N., & Gottlieb, M. A. (2017) · Annals of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.09.015 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Shah, N. B., & Lipton, Z. C. (2020) · ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) · doi:10.1145/3318464.3383129 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Taiwanese Researchers’ Perceptions of Questionable Authorship Practices: An Exploratory Study
Pan, S. J.-A., & Chou, C. (2020) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-020-00180-x · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Peer review practices by medical imaging journals
Kwee, T. C., Adams, H. J. A., & Kwee, R. M. (2020) · Insights into Imaging · doi:10.1186/s13244-020-00921-3 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Desk Rejects Widen Inequalities within Academia
Hassell, H. J. G. (2021) · PS Political Science & Politics · doi:10.1017/s1049096521000469 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Andreou, M., Choi, N., Magenti, J. G., Kohlhaas, S. L., & Sancho, R. (2022) · Health Open Research · doi:10.12688/amrcopenres.13072.1 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Outcome-Based blind tests for leakage diagnosis in underground watermains by acoustic technologies
Lai, W. W., Lau, T. C.-W., Cheng, A. Y.-C., Liu, P. K.-C., & Leung, J. W.-C. (2023) · Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tust.2023.105413 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Pellisé, M., Ebigbo, A., van Herwaarden, Y. J., van Malenstein, H., Papanikolaou, I. S., Pawlak, K. M., Voiosu, A. M., Afify, S., Alkandari, A. A., Araujo, I. K., et al. (2024) · Endoscopy · doi:10.1055/a-2399-3226 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Reviewer Blinding in Peer Review
Gupta, V., Coburn, N. G., & Detsky, A. S. (2020) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000003959 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Molwitz, I., Keller, S., Wolf-Baldauf, L., Ozga, A., Nguyen, T.-A., Wedekind, I., Zhao, J., Can, E., Kamo, M., & Yamamura, J. (2022) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-022-04612-2 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Prior and Prejudice: The Novice Reviewers' Bias against Resubmissions in Conference Peer ReviewPreprint
Stelmakh, I., Shah, N. B., Singh, A., & Daumé, H. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2011.14646 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Against EminencePreprint
Vazire, S. (2017) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/djbcw · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Zhang, G., Wang, L., Yin, Y., & Wang, X. (2025) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2025.2521083 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Chloros, G. D., Konstantinidis, C. I., Vasilopoulou, A., & Giannoudis, P. V. (2023) · International Orthopaedics · doi:10.1007/s00264-023-05729-6 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
von Klinggraeff, L., Burkart, S. A., Pfledderer, C. D., Nishat, M. N. S., Armstrong, B., Weaver, R. G., McLain, A. C., & Beets, M. W. (2023) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.05.011 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Blinding of Peer Review and the Impact on Geographic Diversity of Authors in the Medical Literature
Thabit, A. K. (2023) · Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare · doi:10.2147/jmdh.s415438 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Blinding Models for Scientific Peer-Review of Biomedical Research Proposals: A Systematic Review
Qussini, S., MacDonald, R. S., Shahbal, S., & Dierickx, K. (2023) · Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics · doi:10.1177/15562646231191424 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Regards croisés sur l’analphabétisme scientifique et le processus d’évaluation par les pairs
Larivée, S. J. (2017) · Revue de psychoéducation · doi:10.7202/1039679ar · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Engineering Impacts of Anonymous Author Code Review: A Field Experiment
Murphy-Hill, E. R., Dicker, J. N., Hodges, M. M., Egelman, C., Jaspan, C. N. C., Cheng, L., Kammer, E., Holtz, B., Jorde, M., Knight, A., et al. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2021.3061527 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Shah, N. B. (2021) · ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM) · doi:10.1145/3437963.3441660 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Smaldino, P. E., Turner, M. A., & Kallens, P. C. (2019) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.191249 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Editors’ Note: First Annual Report Regarding JAACAP’s Antiracist Journey
Novins, D. K., Althoff, R. R., Cortese, S., Drury, S. S., Frazier, J. A., Henderson, S. W., McCauley, E., Njoroge, W., White, T. J. H., & Bath, E. P. J. (2021) · Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2021.10.002 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Cultural distance, gender and praise in peer review
Zhang, G., Wang, L., & Wang, X. (2024) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2024.2409310 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Single-Blind and Double-Blind Peer Review: Effects on National Representation
Kalavar, M., Watane, A., Wu, D. M., Sridhar, J. S., Mruthyunjaya, P., & Parikh, R. (2021) · Seminars in Ophthalmology · doi:10.1080/08820538.2021.1896757 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Chin, J. M., Zeiler, K., Dilevski, N., Holcombe, A. O., Gatfield-Jeffries, R., Bishop, R., Vazire, S., & Schiavone, S. R. (2023) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.127563.1 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Abdalla, M., Abdalla, S., Maurer, L. R., Ortega, G., & Abdalla, M. (2023) · Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities · doi:10.1007/s40615-023-01554-0 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
The Fiction of Double-Blind Reviewing: Evidence From the Social Science Research Network
Guo, Y., Xin, F., & Barnes, S. J. (2018) · International Journal of Business Communication · doi:10.1177/2329488418803655 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Editorial: CORR ® Will Change to Double-blind Peer Review—What Took Us So Long to Get There?
Leopold, S. S. (2016) · Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · doi:10.1007/s11999-016-5198-0 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Self-citationNudging Science Towards Fairer Evaluations: Evidence From Peer ReviewPreprint
Smirnova, I. N., Romero, D. M., & Teplitskiy, M. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4190623 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Undertaking peer review for academic journals: The implications for critical care nursing
McEvoy, N. L., & Tume, L. N. (2023) · Nursing in Critical Care · doi:10.1111/nicc.12986 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Giannakakos, V. P., Karanfilian, T. S., Dimopoulos, A. D., & Barmettler, A. (2024) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-024-05213-x · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Lozano, G. I. (2021) · Pure and Applied Chemistry · doi:10.1515/pac-2021-0105 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Double-Blind Reviews: A Step Toward Eliminating Unconscious Bias
Shmidt, E., & Jacobson, B. C. (2022) · Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology · doi:10.14309/ctg.0000000000000443 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Analysis of NIH K99/R00 awards and the career progression of awardees
Woitowich, N. C., Hengel, S. R., Solı́s, C., Vilgalys, T. P., Babdor, J., & Tyrrell, D. J. (2024) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.88984.4 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
A Review and Assessment of Open Access Surgery Journals
Cotter, R. R., Funk, L. M., & Wong, S. L. (2023) · Journal of Surgical Research · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2023.04.008 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Okike, K., Hug, K. T., Kocher, M. S., & Leopold, S. S.
- Affiliations
- Kaiser Permanente Moanalua Medical Center (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- Boston Children's Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Okike, Kanu
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2016-09-27
- Volume
- 316
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1315
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2527516663
- Cited by
- 192
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 62.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- JAMA (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- single-blind review, double-blind review, reviewer bias, peer review quality, medical journals, author identity disclosure
- MeSH terms
- Authorship, Double-Blind Method, Organizational Affiliation, Single-Blind Method, Peer Review, Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
