Double-blind review: the paw print is a giveaway.
作者信息
Naqvi K Razi
出版信息
Nature. 2008 Mar 6;452(7183):28. doi: 10.1038/452028b.
DOI:10.1038/452028b
PMID:18322504
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Double-blind review: the paw print is a giveaway.
Nature. 2008 Mar 6;452(7183):28. doi: 10.1038/452028b.
2
Double-blind review: easy to guess in specialist fields.
Nature. 2008 Mar 6;452(7183):28. doi: 10.1038/452028c.
3
Peer-review system could gain from author feedback.
Nature. 2005 Nov 17;438(7066):282. doi: 10.1038/438282d.
4
Who stands to lose from double-blind review?
Nature. 2008 Mar 6;452(7183):28. doi: 10.1038/452028a.
5
A simple system of checks and balances to cut fraud.
Nature. 2006 Feb 16;439(7078):782. doi: 10.1038/439782b.
6
The politics of publication.
Nature. 2003 Mar 20;422(6929):259-61. doi: 10.1038/422259a.
7
Citation rate unrelated to journals' impact factors.
Nature. 2003 Dec 4;426(6966):495. doi: 10.1038/426495c.
8
Ratings games.
Nature. 2005 Aug 18;436(7053):889-90. doi: 10.1038/436889b.
9
Impact factors aren't top journals' sole attraction.
Nature. 2003 May 29;423(6939):480. doi: 10.1038/423480b.
10
Double-blind review: let diversity reign.
Nature. 2008 Mar 6;452(7183):28. doi: 10.1038/452028d.
引用本文的文献
1
Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups.
Nat Ecol Evol. 2023 Apr;7(4):512-523. doi: 10.1038/s41559-023-01999-w. Epub 2023 Mar 13.
Zotero 插件