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

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 23, Issue 7, 2008, Pages 353-354

  Budden, Amber E ^a   Lortie, Christopher J ^b   Tregenza, Tom ^c   Aarssen, Lonnie ^d   Koricheva, Julia ^e   Leimu, Roosa ^f  

^a NATIONAL CENTER FOR ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS   (United States)

^b YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

^d QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^e QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 45349093661     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.04.001     Document Type: Letter

References (4)

1. Budden A.E., et al. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23 (2008) 4-6
2. Webb T.J., et al. Does double-blind review benefit female authors?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23 (2008) 351-353
3. Blank R.M. The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental-evidence from The American Economic-Review. Am. Econ. Rev. 81 (1991) 1041-1067
4. Wenneras C., and Wold A. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 387 (1997) 341-343