References
- 1Kim Eggleton, “Is anonymity or transparency the best solution to bias in peer review?,” Times Higher Education (THE), March 14, 2022,
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/anonymity-or-transparency-best-solution-bias-peer-review (accessed 21 July 2022). - 2“OACA List,” SPARC Europe,
https://sparceurope.org/what-we-do/open-access/sparc-europe-open-access-resources/open-access-citation-advantage-service-oaca/oaca-list/ (accessed 21 July 2022). - 3Katrina Pickersgill, “Review of Six Months of Transparent Peer Review at SAGE,” SAGE Perspectives (blog), September 22, 2021,
https://perspectivesblog.sagepub.com/blog/six-months-of-transparent-peer-review-at-sage (accessed 21 July 2022). - 4Rachel Pells, “Journal Transparency Rules to Help Scholars Pick Where to Publish,” Times Higher Education (THE), June 4, 2019,
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/journal-transparency-rules-help-scholars-pick-where-publish (accessed 21 July 2022). - 5Alice Meadows, “What Does Transparent Peer Review Mean and Why Is It Important?,” The Scholarly Kitchen, August 3, 2017,
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/08/03/transparent-peer-review-mean-important/ (accessed 21 July 2022). - 6“Transparent Peer Review,” Authorservices.wiley.com,
https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/what-is-peer-review/transparent-peer-review.html (accessed 21 July 2021). - 7“Transparent Peer Review,” SAGE Publications Ltd., May 21, 2021,
https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/transparent-peer-review (accessed 21 July 2021). - 8“Working Group on Peer Review Taxonomy,” STM, https://www.stm-assoc.org/standards-technology/peer-review-taxonomy-project/ (accessed 21 July 2022);
“Work Item Title: Developing a Standard Peer Review Taxonomy (PRT): Background and Problem Statement,” NISO,https://groups.niso.org/higherlogic/ws/public/download/25638/NISO_PeerReviewTaxonomy_for_VM_approval.pdf (accessed 21 July 2022). - 9“Transparent peer review: the value is clear,” Commun Phys 5, no. 108 (2022), DOI: 10.1038/s42005-022-00891-6 (accessed 15 August 2022); “Transparent peer review one year on,” Nature Communications 7, no. 13626
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13626 (accessed 15 August 2022). - 10Katrina Pickersgill, “Six months of Transparent Peer Review at SAGE,” Sage Perspectives (blog), September 22, 2021,
https://perspectivesblog.sagepub.com/blog/six-months-of-transparent-peer-review-at-sage (accessed 15 August 2021). - 11Marc Domingo and Simon Harris, “Transparent Peer Review—a Practical Solution to Implement Open Peer Review at Scale: A Case Study,” Science Editor 43, no. 3 (September 1, 2020): 72–76, DOI: 10.36591/se-d-4303-72 (accessed 21 July 2022).
- 12Amber E. Budden et al., “Double-Blind Review Favours Increased Representation of Female Authors,” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23, no. 1 (January 1, 2008): 4–6, DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008; Stefanie K. Johnson and Jessica F. Kirk, “Dual-Anonymization Yields Promising Results for Reducing Gender Bias: A Naturalistic Field Experiment of Applications for Hubble Space Telescope Time,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 132, no. 1009 (18 February, 2020): 034503, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1538-3873/ab6ce0 (accessed 21 July 2022); Andrew Tomkins, Min Zhang, and William D. Heavlin, “Single versus Double Blind Reviewing at WSDM 2017,” ArXiv:1702.00502 [Cs] (October 2017),
https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00502 (accessed 15 August 2022). - 13Dakota Murray et al., “Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review,” bioRxiv 400515, August 4, 2019, DOI: 10.1101/400515 (accessed 21 July 2022); Johnson and Kirk, “Dual-Anonymization Yields Promising Results for Reducing Gender Bias: A Naturalistic Field Experiment of Applications for Hubble Space Telescope Time.”; Tomkins, Zhang, and Heavlin, “Single versus Double Blind Reviewing at WSDM 2017.”
- 14Mengyi Sun, Jainabou Barry Danfa, and Misha Teplitskiy, “Does Double-Blind Peer Review Reduce Bias? Evidence from a Top Computer Science Conference,” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 73, no.6 (October 12, 2021): 811–819, DOI: 10.1002/asi.24582 (accessed 21 July 2021).
- 15Andrew Tomkins, Min Zhang, and William D. Heavlin, “Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review,” PNAS, 114, no. 48 (October 10, 2017): 12708-12713, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1707323114 (accessed 21 July 2021).
- 16“Single-Blind Vs. Double-Blind Peer Review,” Enago Academy, last updated March 16, 2022,
https://www.enago.com/academy/double-blind-peer-review-for-better-or-for-worse/ (accessed 15 August 2022). - 17“IOP Publishing: Reviewer Experience Survey,” Institute of Physics Publishing.
- 18Xinyao Zhou et al., “Conformal Screen Printed Graphene 4 × 4 Wideband MIMO Antenna on Flexible Substrate for 5G Communication and IoT Applications,” 2D Materials 8, no. 4 (August 20, 2021): 045021, DOI: 10.1088/2053-1583/ac1959 (accessed 21 July 2022).
- 19Laura Simonite,
“What Is Publons Transparent Peer Review?” Web of Science, modified August 1, 2019,https://publons.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/12000060026-what-is-publons-transparent-peer-review- (accessed 21 July 2022).