Blinding Models for Scientific Peer-Review of Biomedical Research Proposals: A Systematic Review
Published 2023 View Full Article
- Home
- Publications
- Publication Search
- Publication Details
Title
Blinding Models for Scientific Peer-Review of Biomedical Research Proposals: A Systematic Review
Authors
Keywords
-
Journal
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics
Volume 18, Issue 4, Pages 250-262
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Online
2023-08-01
DOI
10.1177/15562646231191424
References
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Related references
Note: Only part of the references are listed.- The effect of the scale of grant scoring on ranking accuracy
- (2023) Peter M. Visscher et al. F1000Research
- What makes or breaks competitive research proposals? A mixed-methods analysis of research grant evaluation reports
- (2022) Darko Hren et al. Journal of Informetrics
- Double-Blinded Manuscript Review
- (2021) Ariel Santos et al. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
- The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
- (2021) Matthew J Page et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- An experimental test of the effects of redacting grant applicant identifiers on peer review outcomes
- (2021) Richard K Nakamura et al. eLife
- Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review
- (2019) Samir Haffar et al. MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS
- Science policies: How should science funding be allocated? An evolutionary biologists’ perspective
- (2019) Stephanie Meirmans et al. JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
- Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency
- (2018) Jonathan Shepherd et al. PLoS One
- Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review
- (2017) Andrew Tomkins et al. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- How much would each researcher receive if competitive government research funding were distributed equally among researchers?
- (2017) Krist Vaesen 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
- Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige
- (2016) Kanu Okike et al. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
- Peer Review Evaluation Process of Marie Curie Actions under EU’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research
- (2015) David G. Pina et al. PLoS One
- Attitudes Toward Blinding of Peer Review and Perceptions of Efficacy Within a Small Biomedical Specialty
- (2014) Reshma Jagsi et al. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS
- Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws
- (2014) B. Alberts et al. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- Bias in peer review
- (2012) Carole J. Lee et al. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
- Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals
- (2008) Judith Gedney Baggs et al. JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING
- Sample Size and Precision in NIH Peer Review
- (2008) David Kaplan et al. PLoS One
- Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors
- (2007) A BUDDEN et al. TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION
Add your recorded webinar
Do you already have a recorded webinar? Grow your audience and get more views by easily listing your recording on Peeref.
Upload NowAsk a Question. Answer a Question.
Quickly pose questions to the entire community. Debate answers and get clarity on the most important issues facing researchers.
Get Started