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
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
Items 101–193 of 193
A Comparison of Plastic Surgery Authorship Trends Under Single Versus Double-Blinded Review
Subramanian, S., Maisner, R. S., Patel, N. J., Song, A., Yuan, L., Mistry, D., Kapadia, K., & Lee, E. S. (2024) · Journal of Surgical Research · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2024.03.012 · Cited by 5
Peer review blinding practices of highly ranked dental journals: analysis and discussion
Faggion, C. M. (2021) · BDJ · doi:10.1038/s41415-021-3319-y · Cited by 4
Parikh, L. I., Benner, R. S., Riggs, T. W., Hazen, N., & Chescheir, N. C. (2017) · Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000001852 · Cited by 4
Celebrating the Harvard Review of Psychiatry’s 25th Year
Greenfield, S. F. (2017) · Harvard Review of Psychiatry · doi:10.1097/hrp.0000000000000140 · Cited by 4
The aims and scope of WikiJournal of Science
WikiJSci editorial board, & Shafee, T. (2018) · WikiJournal of Science · doi:10.15347/wjs/2018.001 · Cited by 4
The effect of reviewer geographical diversity on evaluations is reduced by anonymizing submissionsPreprint
Dumlao, J. M. Z., & Teplitskiy, M. (2023) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/754e3 · Cited by 5
Tips and guidelines for being a good peer reviewer
Gisbert, J. P., & Chaparro, M. (2023) · Gastroenterología y Hepatología (English Edition) · doi:10.1016/j.gastre.2022.03.010 · Cited by 3
Should a scientist be prevented from publishing in a journal for which he works?
Charlier, P., Deo, S., & Brun, L. V. C. (2017) · European Journal of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2017.03.008 · Cited by 3
Effective Peer Review: Who, Where, or What?
Hall, R. P. (2022) · JID Innovations · doi:10.1016/j.xjidi.2022.100162 · Cited by 5
The role of author identities in peer review
Shah, N. B. (2023) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0286206 · Cited by 6
Gershengorn, H. B., Vranas, K. C., Cooke, C. R., Slatore, C. G., & Levine, S. M. (2025) · CHEST Journal · doi:10.1016/j.chest.2025.02.016 · Cited by 3
Fanfan, D., McKenney, M. G., & Elkbuli, A. (2021) · Annals of Medicine and Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102211 · Cited by 3
The prejudices of expert evidencePreprint
Chin, J. M., Cullen, H. J., & Clarke, B. (2022) · doi:10.31222/osf.io/nxcvy · Cited by 4
Peer Review in Urology Journals: What Is the Best Peer Review Model?
Kaplan-Marans, E., & Khurgin, J. L. (2022) · The Journal of Urology · doi:10.1097/ju.0000000000002961 · Cited by 3
Instilling Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the CHEST Journal Community
Riordan, L., Levine, S. M., Levine, S. M., Bencheqroun, H., Gershon, A. S., Jin, Y., Osarogiagbon, R. U., Párraga, G., Petersen, H., Riordan, L., et al. (2023) · CHEST Journal · doi:10.1016/j.chest.2023.05.023 · Cited by 3
Critical Evaluation of Clinical Research in Obstetrics and Gynecology
Fisher, S. A., & Miller, E. S. (2022) · Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/grf.0000000000000695 · Cited by 2
One journal to bring them all, and in the fossils bind them
Alba, D. M. (2022) · Journal of Human Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103306 · Cited by 2
Shi, H., Xu, H., Huang, S., Tan, Z., Ma, X., Zhang, H., Zhang, W., Shi, L., Zhong, X., Lü, M., et al. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0295648 · Cited by 2
A randomized controlled trial on anonymizing reviewers to each other in peer review discussions
Rastogi, C., Song, X., Jin, Z., Stelmakh, I., Daumé, H., Zhang, K., & Shah, N. B. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0315674 · Cited by 8
Reducing bias in the peer‐review process
Frair, J. L. (2025) · Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.1002/jwmg.70019 · Cited by 2
Blinded versus Unblinded Review: A Field Study on the Equity of Peer-Review Processes
Pleskac, T. J., Kyung, E. J., Chapman, G. B., & Urminsky, O. (2025) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2022.01646 · Cited by 4
Current State in Scientific Publishing
Wolf, J. M., Sandell, L. J., Leopold, S. S., & Dodson, K. (2019) · Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery · doi:10.2106/jbjs.18.01260 · Cited by 2
Self-citationPuthumana, J. S., Khan, I. F., Tiongco, R. F. P., Rezwan, S. K., Atayeva, R., Nahmias, J. T., Jung, H. S., & Cooney, C. M. M. (2023) · Global Surgical Education - Journal of the Association for Surgical Education · doi:10.1007/s44186-023-00105-9 · Cited by 3
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. (2023) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.88984 · Cited by 2
SETAC journals adopt double-blind peer review
Menzie, C. A. (2018) · Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry · doi:10.1002/etc.4320 · Cited by 2
Blinded versus unblinded review: A field study comparing the equity of peer reviewPreprint
Pleskac, T. J., Kyung, E. J., Chapman, G. B., & Urminsky, O. (2021) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/q2tkw · Cited by 2
Analysis of NIH K99/R00 Awards and the Career Progression of AwardeesPreprint
Woitowich, N. C., Hengel, S. R., Solı́s, C., Vilgalys, T. P., Babdor, J., & Tyrrell, D. J. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.01.26.525751 · Cited by 2
Analysis of NIH K99/R00 Awards and the Career Progression of AwardeesPreprint
Woitowich, N. C., Hengel, S. R., Solı́s, C., Vilgalys, T. P., Babdor, J., & Tyrrell, D. J. (2024) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.88984.3 · Cited by 2
Conflicts of Interest and Scientific Objectivity
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197547090.003.0008 · Cited by 2
Chung, K. H., & Lee, C. (2022) · Journal of Banking & Finance · doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2024.107093 · Cited by 1
Status and Subfield: The Distribution of Sociological Specializations across Departments
Elder, T. B., & Kozlowski, A. C. (2025) · Poetics · doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2025.101973 · Cited by 1
Afrostemia: Insurgent epistemologies in science and the decolonial reinvention of knowledge
da Silva, A., & Prosdocimi, F. (2026) · Educational Philosophy and Theory · doi:10.1080/00131857.2026.2704822 · Cited by 2
Double-blind Peer Review in JOGC
Tulandi, T., & Hines, K. (2020) · Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2019.11.066 · Cited by 1
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197547090.003.0006 · Cited by 1
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197547090.003.0002 · Cited by 1
Conley, R. E., Hall, K. C., Setodji, C. M., Oliver, S., Denton, S. W., Gibson, C. B., Emslie, P., Cochran, S., Schiefer, M., & Bauman, M. (2022) · RAND Corporation eBooks · doi:10.7249/rra1251-1 · Cited by 1
Zhang, R. J., Kennard, N. N., Smith, D. S., McFarland, D. A., McCallum, A., & Keith, K. A. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.83 · Cited by 1
Sereno, M., & DiCocco, J. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47343-2_11 · Cited by 1
Impact of peer review type and editor gender on women authorships in mathematics
Lozano, G. I., MacArthur, K. R., & Barr, B. (2024) · Quantitative Science Studies · doi:10.1162/qss_a_00318 · Cited by 1
Prilog raspravi o vrednovanju znanstvenog leksikografskog rada / Vida Vukoja
Vukoja, V. (2017) · Filologija časopis Razreda za filološke znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti · doi:10.21857/yrvgqtkx59 · Cited by 1
Organising and Launching a Scholarly Open Access Journal
Berkesand, P. (2020) · Linköping University Electronic Press eBooks · doi:10.3384/9789179296490 · Cited by 1
Collaboration within Academia and with Industry
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197547090.003.0004 · Cited by 3
SETAC journals adopt double-blind peer review
Menzie, C. A. (2018) · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management · doi:10.1002/ieam.4105 · Cited by 1
Motivating and Maintaining Ethics, Equity, Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Expertise in Peer ReviewPreprint
Craig, A. (2022) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/srhe9 · Cited by 1
Analysis of NIH K99/R00 Awards and the Career Progression of AwardeesPreprint
Woitowich, N. C., Hengel, S. R., Vilgalys, T. P., Babdor, J., & Tyrrell, D. J. (2023) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.88984.1 · Cited by 1
Ross, J. S. (2016) · American Journal of Neuroradiology · doi:10.3174/ajnr.a5047
Going blind: UWOMJ’s updated review process
Levit, A. (2018) · University of Western Ontario Medical Journal · doi:10.5206/uwomj.v87i1.1781
Peer Review and the PJOHNS: Principles, Problems, and Promise
Lapeña, J. F. F. (2018) · Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery · doi:10.32412/pjohns.v33i1.11
Le JOGC adopte la révision par les pairs à double insu
Tulandi, T., & Hines, K. (2020) · Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2019.12.003
Zikmund‐Fisher, B. J. (2020) · MDM Policy & Practice · doi:10.1177/2381468320966542
Working against bias: double blind peer review at Journal of Osteopathic Medicine
ZAFONTE, R. D., & Schmidt, M. B. (2021) · Journal of Osteopathic Medicine · doi:10.1515/jom-2021-0097
KDD 2021 Tutorial on Systemic Challenges and Solutions on Bias and Unfairness in Peer Review
Shah, N. B. (2021) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3447548.3470826
Long-term impact of an editorial intervention to improve paper transparency and reproducibility
Pacheco, M. V. (2021) · UPCommons institutional repository (Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya) · doi:10.5821/dissertation-2117-351121
Moving to a double-blind review system
Fosgate, G. T., Doherr, M. G., & Kostoulas, P. (2021) · Preventive Veterinary Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2021.105561
Not the Last Word: Planck’s Principle and the Case for Pseudonymous Publication
Bernstein, J. M. (2022) · Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · doi:10.1097/corr.0000000000002196
Chapter 5: Reviewing the Reviewers: Training Neural Networks to Read Peer Review Reports
Eve, M. P., Gadie, R., Odeniyi, V., & Parvin, S. (2022) · Digital humanities research · doi:10.1515/9783839455845-006 · Cited by 2
Zikmund‐Fisher, B. J. (2020) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x20958702
Getting Your Writing Published
Taylor, R. B. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-70126-4_12
The Use of Animals in Research
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197547090.003.0010
Scientific Research and Ethics
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197547090.003.0001
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197547090.003.0005
Data Acquisition and Management
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197547090.003.0003
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197547090.003.0013
Mentoring and the Research Environment
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197547090.003.0009
The Protection of Human Subjects in Research
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197547090.003.0011
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197547090.003.0007
Science and Social Responsibility
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197547090.003.0012
Mitigating potential bias in peer review at IFAR
Smith, T. L., Turner, J. H., Lin, S. Y., & Luong, A. (2022) · International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology · doi:10.1002/alr.23113
Mirada Retrospectiva a la Investigación Científica
Benavides, R. A. H. (2023) · doi:10.37073/feunah.43
Shi, H., Huang, S., Tan, Z., Ma, X., Zhang, H., Zhang, W., Shi, L., Zhong, X., Lü, M., Chen, X., et al. (2023) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000035941
Analysis of NIH K99/R00 Awards and the Career Progression of AwardeesPreprint
Woitowich, N. C., Hengel, S. R., Solı́s, C., Vilgalys, T. P., Babdor, J., & Tyrrell, D. J. (2023) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.88984.2
Author Response: 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. (2023) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.88984.2.sa4
Author Response: 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.88984.3.sa4
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197547090.002.0005
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197547090.002.0003
Undermining Trust in Science: No Fraud Required
Song, Y., & Balajewicz, M. J. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-68058-8_17
Single-Blind vs. Double-Blind vs. Open Peer Review
(2024) · Advances in medical education, research, and ethics (AMERE) book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-3828-5.ch004
Atieh, M., & Alsabeeha, N. H. M. (2025) · Clinical and Experimental Dental Research · doi:10.1002/cre2.70122
Blinded versus unblinded review: A field study comparing the equity of peer reviewPreprint
Pleskac, T. J., Kyung, E. J., Chapman, G. B., & Urminsky, O. (2025) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/q2tkw_v3
Montes-Vergara, D. E., Salgado-Arroyo, L. C., & Marco González, T. (2024) · Revista Colombiana de Ciencia Animal - RECIA · doi:10.24188/recia.v16.n1.2024.1154
Bello, S., Ajuwon, G., Azubuike, F. C., & Hameed, S. G. (2025) · Journal of Hospital Librarianship · doi:10.1080/15323269.2025.2569307
Rethinking (un)blinding in biomedical proposal peer review: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study
Qussini, S., Anami, F. M., & Dierickx, K. (2025) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2025.2593625
Chary, S., Amrein, K., Soeteman, D. I., Mehta, S., & Christopher, K. B. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14903783
The Perils of AI-Generated Peer Review
Lim, J. H., & Adjei, A. A. (2026) · Journal of Thoracic Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2025.10.015
Boudreau, K. J. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6025114 · Cited by 1
Aflatooni, J. O., Smitterberg, C. W., Grynovicki, E. N., Scuderi, G. R., Delanois, R. E., & Mont, M. A. (2026) · The Journal of Arthroplasty · doi:10.1016/j.arth.2026.02.023
Bae, A. J. (2026) · Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives · doi:10.1016/j.trip.2026.102058
Editorial and peer review dynamics at elite general science journals
Zhang, S., LaBerge, N., McElhiney, Q., Larremore, D. B., & Clauset, A. J. (2026) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aec0494
Editorial Discretion and Procedural Fairness: A Framework for Accountable Desk-Rejection Decisions
Fahmy, M. A. (2026) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.189360.1
Publishing from the scientific (semi)periphery: funding asymmetry in UK-Poland collaborationPreprint
Kosch, O., McKinley, J., Szarucki, M., Bugaj, J. M., & Rybkowski, R. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7478671
Fan, H., Wu, F., Liang, C., & Zhao, C. (2026) · Equality Diversity and Inclusion An International Journal · doi:10.1108/edi-12-2025-0829
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
