Use of double-blind peer review to increase author diversity

Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review

(2013) In-Uck Park et al.   NATURE

Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science

(2013) Vincent Larivière et al.   NATURE

Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap

(2013) Helen Shen   NATURE

Double-blind peer review

(2013)   Nature Geoscience

Blind faith

(2013)   Nature Climate Change

Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students

(2012) C. A. Moss-Racusin et al.   PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science

(2011) S. J. Ceci et al.   PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Do gender, nationality, or academic age affect review decisions? An analysis of submissions to the journal Biological Conservation

(2009) Richard B. Primack et al.   BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION

Does double-blind review favor female authors?

(2008) Katrin Hammerschmidt et al.   FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Working double-blind

(2008)   NATURE

Journal review and gender equality: a critical comment on Budden et al.

(2008) R WHITTAKER   TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION

Response to Webb et al.: Double-blind review: accept with minor revisions

(2008) Amber E. Budden et al.   TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION

Does double-blind review benefit female authors?

(2008) Thomas J. Webb et al.   TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION

Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors

(2007) A BUDDEN et al.   TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION