Improving publication quality by reducing bias with double-blind reviewing and author response

ACM SIGPLAN Notices

Volumn 43, Issue 8, 2008, Pages 5-9

  McKinley, Kathryn S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING; COMPUTER SCIENCE;

FINAL DECISION; OBJECTIVE CRITERIA;

DECISION MAKING;

EID: 67049156231     PISSN: 15232867     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/1416216.1416218     Document Type: Review

References (8)

1. S. Hill and F. Provost. The myth of the double-blind review?: Author identification using only citations. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 5(2):179-184, 2003.
2. D. N. Laband and M. J. Piette. Citation analysis of blinded peer review. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): The Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, 272(2):147-149, July 1994.
3. R. T. Snodgrass. Single- versus double-blind reviewing: An analysis of the literature. ACM SIGMOD Record, 35(3):8-21, 2006.
4. R. T. Snodgrass. Editorial: Single- versus double-blind reviewing reviewing. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), 32(1):1-31, 2007.
5. R. T. Snodgrass. Frequently asked questions about doubleblind reviewing. ACM SIGMOD Record, 36(1):60-62, 2007.
6. A. K. H. Tung. Impact of double-blind reviewing on SIGMOD publication: A more detailed analysis. ACM SIGMOD Record, 35(3):6-7, 2006.
7. D. Watson, A. C. Andersen, and J. Hjorth. Mysterious disappearance of female investigators. Nature, 436(7048):174, July 2005.
8. C. Wenneras and A. Wold. Nepotism and sexism in peerreview. Nature, 387(6631):341-343, May 1997.