AlamM.KimN. A.HaveyJ.RademakerA.RatnerD.TregreB. . . . ColemanW. P.III. (2011). Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: A randomized multi-rater study. British Journal of Dermatology, 165, 563–567.
2.
BaggsJ. G.BroomeM. E.DoughertyM. C.FredaM. C.KearneyM. H. (2008). Blinding in peer review: The preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 64, 131–138. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04816.x
3.
BuddenA. E.TregenzaT.AarssenL. W.KorichevaJ.LeimuR.LortieC. J. (2008). Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23, 4–6. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008
4.
DoughertyM. C. (2004). Open peer review: A first step. Nursing Research, 53(4), 213.
5.
RogersL. F. (2002). Manuscripts: To blind or not to blind, that is the question. American Journal of Roentgenology, 179(6), 1373.
6.
van RooyenS.GodleeF.EvansS.SmithR.BlackN. (1999). Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 14, 622–624.
