Which peer reviewers voluntarily reveal their identity to authors? Insights into the consequences of open-identities peer review

The gender gap in commenting: Women are less likely than men to comment on (men’s) published research

(2020) Cary Wu et al.   PLoS One

Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science

(2020) Dietmar Wolfram et al.   SCIENTOMETRICS

Double-blind peer review-An experiment

(2019) Charles W. Fox et al.   FUNCTIONAL ECOLOGY

The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals

(2019) Giangiacomo Bravo et al.   Nature Communications

Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution

(2019) Charles W. Fox et al.   Ecology and Evolution

The gendered system of academic publishing

(2018) Jamie Lundine et al.   LANCET

Patterns of authorship in ecology and evolution: First, last, and corresponding authorship vary with gender and geography

(2018) Charles W. Fox et al.   Ecology and Evolution

Academics’ attitudes towards peer review in scholarly journals and the effect of role and discipline

(2017) Jennifer Rowley et al.   JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE

Gender bias in scholarly peer review

(2017) Markus Helmer et al.   eLife

Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers

(2017) Tony Ross-Hellauer et al.   PLoS One

Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

(2016) Rachel Bruce et al.   BMC Medicine

Author-suggested reviewers: gender differences and influences on the peer review process at an ecology journal

(2016) Charles W. Fox et al.   FUNCTIONAL ECOLOGY

Gender differences in patterns of authorship do not affect peer review outcomes at an ecology journal

(2015) Charles W. Fox et al.   FUNCTIONAL ECOLOGY

Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal

(2015) Charles W. Fox et al.   FUNCTIONAL ECOLOGY

Comparison of self-citation by peer reviewers in a journal with single-blind peer review versus a journal with open peer review

(2015) Alexander W. Levis et al.   JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOMATIC RESEARCH

Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models

(2015) Maria K Kowalczuk et al.   BMJ Open

Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer?

(2014) Elizabeth C Moylan et al.   BMC Pharmacology & Toxicology

Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities

(2013) Roger Chun-Man Ho et al.   BMC Medical Research Methodology

Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers

(2012) Adrian Mulligan et al.   JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Leaks in the pipeline: separating demographic inertia from ongoing gender differences in academia

(2012) A. K. Shaw et al.   PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals

(2008) Judith Gedney Baggs et al.   JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING