ArticlePeerJ2019
The cases for and against double-blind reviews.
Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Double anonymous peer review inJournal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2026Article
- Gender equity in the scientific nursing journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports: A cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Article
- Racism and censorship in the editorial and peer review process.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Review
- Capacity Building in Peer-review: A Student-Led Journal Report.Medical science educator · 2022Article
- Metrics and methods in the evaluation of prestige bias in peer review: A case study in computer systems conferences.PloS one · 2022Article
- An experimental test of the effects of redacting grant applicant identifiers on peer review outcomes.eLife · 2021Article
- Review
- Impact of COVID-19 on longitudinal ophthalmology authorship gender trends.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To date, the majority of authors on scientific publications have been men. While much of this gender bias can be explained by historic sexism and discrimination, there is concern that women may still be disadvantaged by the peer review process if reviewers' biases lead them to reject publications with female authors more often. One potential solution to this perceived gender bias in the reviewing process is for journals to adopt double-blind reviews whereby neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other's identity and gender. To test the efficacy of double-blind reviews in one behavioral ecology journal (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.