Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 313–315 | Cite as

Time for Revelation: Unmasking the Anonymity of Blind Reviewers



Review Process Open Review Blind Review Professional Credibility Peer Review System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anonymous, (2014). Retraction notice. Journal of Vibration and Control, 20(10), 1601–1604. doi: 10.1177/1077546314541924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dzeng, E. (2014). How academia and publishing are destroying scientific innovation: A conversation with Sydney Brenner.
  3. Hojat, M., Gonnella, J. S., & Caelleigh, A. S. (2003). Impartial judgment by the “Gatekeepers” of science: Fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 8(1), 75–96. doi: 10.1023/A:1022670432373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. McCook, A. (2006). Is peer review broken? The Scientist, 20(2), 26–31.Google Scholar
  5. Nature. (2006). Overview: Nature’s peer review trial. doi: 10.1038/nature05535.
  6. Resnik, D. B., & Elmore, S. A. (2016). Ensuring the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review: A possible role of editors. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 169–188. doi: 10.1007/s11948-015-9625-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sengamala Thayaar Educational TrustMannargudiIndia
  2. 2.College of Pharmacy and Health CareTajen UniversityYanpu, PingtungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations