Double‐blind peer review affects reviewer ratings and editor decisions at an ecology journal

Nobel and novice: Author prominence affects peer review

(2022) Jürgen Huber et al.   PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Peer review and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals

(2021) Flaminio Squazzoni et al.   Science Advances

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

(2021) Charles W. Fox   PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

An experimental test of the effects of redacting grant applicant identifiers on peer review outcomes

(2021) Richard K Nakamura et al.   eLife

Design flaws and poor language: Two key reasons why manuscripts get rejected from Austral Ecology across all countries between 2017 and 2020

(2020) Nigel R. Andrew   AUSTRAL ECOLOGY

Double-blind peer review-An experiment

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

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

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

GEB goes double blind

(2017) Brian J. McGill et al.   GLOBAL ECOLOGY AND BIOGEOGRAPHY

Explicit Bias Toward High-Income-Country Research: A Randomized, Blinded, Crossover Experiment Of English Clinicians

(2017) Matthew Harris et al.   HEALTH AFFAIRS

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

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

Journals invite too few women to referee

(2017) Jory Lerback et al.   NATURE

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

Few authors choose anonymous peer review, massive study of Nature journals shows

(2017) Martin Enserink   SCIENCE

Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal

(2016) E.E. O'Connor et al.   AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY

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

Nature journals offer double-blind review

(2015)   NATURE

Use of double-blind peer review to increase author diversity

(2014) E. S. Darling   CONSERVATION BIOLOGY

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

Effect of English Proficiency and Research Funding on Acceptance of Submitted Articles to Stroke Journal

(2014) Gustavo Saposnik et al.   STROKE

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

Bias in peer review

(2012) Carole J. Lee et al.   JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Unfortunately, linguistic injustice matters

(2011) Miguel Clavero   TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION

The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer-review process of an ophthalmic journal

(2009) S J Isenberg et al.   BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY