Double-blind in light of the internet: A note on author anonymity

Information Economics and Policy

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 24-26

  Holm, Håkan J ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Experiment; Information policy; Review process; Scientific publication

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION POLICY; REVIEW PROCESS; SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS;

INTERNET; PUBLISHING;

EXPERIMENTS;

EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION POLICY; INTERNET; PUBLISHING;

EID: 79952043703     PISSN: 01676245     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.infoecopol.2010.03.001     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Azar O. Rejection and the importance of first response times. International Journal of Social Economics 2004, 31:259-274.
2. Blank R. The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from the American Economic Review. American Economic Review 1991, 81:1041-1067.
3. Haeussler, C., Jiang, L., Thursby, J., Thursby M., 2009. Specific and General Information Sharing Among Scientists. NBER Working Paper 15315.
4. Holm, H., 2009. Double-blind in Light of Internet - Note on Review Processes. Department of Economics Lund University Working Paper 5.
5. Kalaitzidakis P., Mamuneas T., Stengos T. Rankings of academic journals and institutions in economics. Journal of European Economic Association 2003, 1:1346-1366.
6. Merton R. Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review 1957, 22:635-659.
7. Moffitt R. Report of the editor American Economic Review. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 2009, 99:1-11.
8. Nature (Editorial), 2008. Working double-blind. Should there be author anonymity in peer review? Nature 451 (7179), 605-606.