Blind Manuscript Submission to Reduce Rejection Bias?

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 535-539

  Moustafa, Khaled ^a  

^a INSERM   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ETHICS; HUMAN; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH; STATISTICAL BIAS; WRITING;

AUTHORSHIP; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); EDITORIAL POLICIES; HUMANS; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH;

EID: 84938983590     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: 14715546     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-014-9547-7     Document Type: Article

References (4)

1. Budden, A. E., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L. W., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., & Lortie, C. J. (2008). Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,23(1), 4–6.
2. Kmietowicz, Z. (2008). Double blind peer reviews are fairer and more objective, say academics. British Medical Journal,336(7638), 241.
3. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,109(41), 16474–16479.
4. Moustafa, K. (2014). The disaster of the impact factor. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9517-0.