A Call for Explainer/Tutorial Articles and Changes to Manuscript Submission and Review at MDM and MDM P&P

Abstract

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Snodgrass

Single- versus double-blind reviewing: an analysis of the literature. ACM SIGMOD Rec. 2006;35(3):8–21.

Budden

Tregenza

Aarssen

Koricheva

Leimu

Lortie

CJ.

Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol Evol. 2008;23(1):4–6.

Roberts

Verhoef

Double-blind reviewing at EvoLang 11 reveals gender bias. J Lang Evol. 2016;1(2):163–7.

Knobloch-Westerwick

Glynn

Huge

The Matilda effect in science communication: an experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Sci Commun. 2013;35(5):603–25.

Seeber

Bacchelli

Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?

Scientometrics. 2017;113(1):567–85.

Tomkins

Zhang

Heavlin

WD.

Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114(48):12708–13.

Okike

Hug

Kocher

Leopold

SS.

Single-blind vs double-blind peer review in the setting of author prestige. JAMA. 2016;316(12):1315–6.

Link

AM.

US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA. 1998;280(3):246–7.

Scherer

Zikmund-Fisher

BJ.

Eliciting medical maximizing-minimizing preferences with a single question: development and validation of the MM1. Med Decis Making. 2020;40(4):545–50.