Skip to main content
Log in

Opinion

On blindness

  • Department
  • Published:
The Mathematical Intelligencer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Banner, J.M., Preserving the integrity of peer-review,Scholarly Publishing 19 (1988), no. 2, 109–115.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 26 (1979), 119.

  3. Fisher, M.,et al., The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review,Journal of the American Medical Society 272 (1994), no. 2, 143–146.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Journal of the History of Ideas 58 (1997), no. 1.

  5. Labland, D.N., and Piette, M.J., A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review,Journal of the American Medical Society 272 (1994), no. 2, 147–151.

    Google Scholar 

  6. McGiffert, M., Is justice blind? An inquiry into peer-review,Scholarly Publishing 20 (1988), no. 1, 43–48.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Peters, D.P., and Ceci, S.J., Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles, submitted again,Behav. Brain 5 (1982), 187–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Shaughnessy, A.F., Comment; Blind peer review of journal articles,Drug Intelligence and Clinical Pharmacy 22 (1988), no. 12, 1006.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bourbaki, L.B. Opinion. Math Intelligencer 21, 4–5 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03024823

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03024823

Navigation