Can peer review be improved by withholding information from referees? There is some evidence to suggest it might be, but the jury is still out, reports Alastair Brown.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Godlee, F., Gale, C. R. & Martyn, C. N. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 280, 237–240 (1998).
Goldin, C. & Rose, C. The Am. Economic Rev. 90, 715–741 (2001).
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J. & Handelsman, J. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 16474–16479 (2012).
Regehr, G. & Bordage, G. Med. Educ. 40, 832–839 (2006).
Jagsi, R. et al. Int. J. Radiation Oncol. Biol. Phys. 89, 940–946 (2014).
Nature Geosci. 5, 585 (2012).
Nature Geosci. 6, 413 (2013).
Nature Clim. Change 3, 525 (2013).
Darling, E. Conserv. Biol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12333 (2014).
Jefferson, T. et al. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 287, 2784–2786 (2002).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brown, A. Double-blind under review. Nature Nanotech 9, 871–872 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2014.265
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2014.265
- Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by
-
Is there a gender difference in scientific collaboration? A scientometric examination of co-authorships among industrial–organizational psychologists
Scientometrics (2016)
-
Announcement: double-blind peer review
Nature Structural & Molecular Biology (2015)
-
Announcement: double-blind peer review
Nature Genetics (2015)
-
Introducing double-blind peer review
Nature Cell Biology (2015)
-
Double-blind peer review
Nature Biotechnology (2015)