The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
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.
Overview
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
Verification
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
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.
Citations
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
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 271
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
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
Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of a peer review
van Rooyen, S. (2013) · doi:10.1186/isrctn83117960 · Cited by 61
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
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
Peer review in scholarly journals
zz (2009) · Cited by 8
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
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
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 299
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
Responsible Conduct of Research
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2022) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197547090.001.0001 · Cited by 224
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
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
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 155
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
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
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
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
The cases for and against double-blind reviews
Cox, A. R., & Montgomerie, R. (2019) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.6702 · Cited by 67
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 68
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
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 55
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
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 42
Salimi, B., Parikh, H., Kayali, M., Getoor, L. C., Roy, S., & Suciu, D. M. (2020) · ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) · doi:10.1145/3318464.3389759 · Cited by 45
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
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
Wingen, T., Berkessel, J. B., & Dohle, S. (2022) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/25152459211070559 · Cited by 40
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 45
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 39
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
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 36
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
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
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
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
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 34
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
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
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
Bianchi, F., & Squazzoni, F. (2022) · Science and Public Policy · doi:10.1093/scipol/scac027 · Cited by 24
Walker, K. A. (2019) · Annals of the Entomological Society of America · doi:10.1093/aesa/saz066 · Cited by 22
Elson, M., Huff, M., & Utz, S. (2020) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2515245919895419 · Cited by 23
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
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
Academic free speech or right-wing grievance?
Herbert, J. M. (2023) · Digital Discovery · doi:10.1039/d2dd00111j · Cited by 22
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
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
Stelmakh, I., Shah, N. B., Singh, A., & Daumé, H. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3449149 · Cited by 24
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
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
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 17
Archives, Access and Artificial Intelligence
(2022) · Bielefeld University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783839455845 · Cited by 14
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
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 16
Breaking groupthink: Why scientific identity and norms mitigate ideological epistemologyPreprint
Bavel, J. J. V., Reinero, D. A., Harris, E., Robertson, C., & Pärnamets, P. (2020) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/734aj · Cited by 15
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
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
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 18
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
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
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 13
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
Archives, Access and Artificial Intelligence
Eve, M. P., Gadie, R., Odeniyi, V., & Parvin, S. (2022) · Digital humanities research · doi:10.14361/9783839455845 · Cited by 27
Wingen, T., Berkessel, J. B., & Dohle, S. (2021) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/7n3mj · Cited by 9
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
Frachtenberg, E., & McConville, K. S. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0264131 · Cited by 12
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
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
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
Sverdlichenko, I., Xie, J. S., & Margolin, E. (2022) · Ethics Medicine and Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.jemep.2022.100758 · Cited by 9
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
Shah, N. B., & Lipton, Z. C. (2020) · ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) · doi:10.1145/3318464.3383129 · Cited by 9
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
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
Desk Rejects Widen Inequalities within Academia
Hassell, H. J. G. (2021) · PS Political Science & Politics · doi:10.1017/s1049096521000469 · Cited by 7
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
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 8
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
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
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
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
Against EminencePreprint
Vazire, S. (2017) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/djbcw · Cited by 7
Zhang, G., Wang, L., Yin, Y., & Wang, X. (2025) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2025.2521083 · Cited by 5
Chloros, G. D., Konstantinidis, C. I., Vasilopoulou, A., & Giannoudis, P. V. (2023) · International Orthopaedics · doi:10.1007/s00264-023-05729-6 · Cited by 6
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
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
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
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
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
Shah, N. B. (2021) · ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM) · doi:10.1145/3437963.3441660 · Cited by 6
Smaldino, P. E., Turner, M. A., & Kallens, P. C. (2019) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.191249 · Cited by 5
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
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
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
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 6
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
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
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
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
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
Giannakakos, V. P., Karanfilian, T. S., Dimopoulos, A. D., & Barmettler, A. (2024) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-024-05213-x · Cited by 5
Lozano, G. I. (2021) · Pure and Applied Chemistry · doi:10.1515/pac-2021-0105 · Cited by 4
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
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
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
Metadata
- 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 › Library and Information Sciences › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › 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
