Who stands to win from double-blind peer review?

References

• Budden AE Tregenza T Aarssen LW Koricheva J Leimu R Lortie CJ. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors Trends Ecol Evol 2008 23 4 6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darling ES. Use of double-blind peer review to increase author diversity Conserv Biol 2014
   Google Scholar
• Link AM. US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias JAMA. 1998 280 246 7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moss-Racusin CA Dovidio JF Brescoll VL Graham MJ Handelsman J. Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012 109 16474 9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wenneras C Wold A. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature 1997 387 341 3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee CJ Sugimoto CR Zhang G Cronin B. Bias in peer review J Am Soc Inform Sci Tech 2013 64 2 17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baggs JG Broome ME Dougherty MC Freda MC Kearney MH. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals J Adv Nurs 2008 64 131 8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho RC Mak KK Tao R Lu Y Day JR Pan F. Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities BMC Med Res Methodol 2013 13 74
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jagsi R Bennett KE Griffith KA DeCastro R Grace C Holliday E. Attitudes toward blinding of peer review and perceptions of efficacy within a small biomedical specialty Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014 89 940 6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moylan EC Harold S O'Neill C Kowalczuk MK. Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer? BMC Pharmacol Toxicol 2014 15 55
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware M. Peer review in scholarly journals: an international study of the perspective of the scholarly community 2008 Bristol Mark Ware Consulting
   Google Scholar
• Working double-blind. Nature 2008 451 605 6.
   Google Scholar
• Working double-blind [corrected] Nature Blog 2008 [updated 2008 February 6; cited 28 November 2014]. Available from: http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2008/02/working_doubleblind.html.
   Google Scholar
• Cleary JD Alexander B. Blind versus nonblind review: survey of selected medical journals Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1988 22 601 2.
   Google Scholar
• Pitkin RM. Blinded manuscript review: an idea whose time has come? Obstet Gynecol. 1995 85 781 2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho MK Justice AC Winker MA Berlin JA Waeckerle JF Callaham ML. Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators JAMA. 1998 280 243 5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Justice AC Cho MK Winker MA Berlin JA Rennie D. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators JAMA. 1998 280 240 2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Rooyen S Godlee F Evans S Smith R Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial JAMA. 1998 280 234 7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garvalov BK. Who stands to lose from double-blind review? Nature 2008 452 28
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarrad F. Conservation biology enacts double-blind peer review SCB News Blog 2014 [updated 2014 October 7; cited 28 November 2014]. Available from: http://www.conbio.org/publications/scb-news-blog/conservation-biology-enacts-double-blind-peer-review.
   Google Scholar
• Double-blind peer review Nat Geosci 2013 6 413
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Double-blind peer review Nat Nanotechnol 2014 9 869
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cressey D. Journals weigh up double-blind peer review Nature News 2014 [updated 2014 July 15; cited 28 November 2014]. Available from: http://www.nature.com/news/journals-weigh-up-double-blind-peer-review-1.15564
   Google Scholar
• Katz DS Proto AV Olmsted WW. Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002 179 1415 17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNutt RA Evans AT Fletcher RH Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial JAMA. 1990 263 1371 6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webb TJ O'Hara B Freckleton RP. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? Trends Ecol Evol 2008 23 351 3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar