RobertsSGVerhoefT.Double-blind reviewing at EvoLang 11 reveals gender bias. J Lang Evol. 2016;1(2):163–7.
4.
Knobloch-WesterwickSGlynnCJHugeM.The Matilda effect in science communication: an experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Sci Commun. 2013;35(5):603–25.
5.
SeeberMBacchelliA.Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?Scientometrics. 2017;113(1):567–85.
6.
TomkinsAZhangMHeavlinWD.Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114(48):12708–13.
7.
OkikeKHugKTKocherMSLeopoldSS.Single-blind vs double-blind peer review in the setting of author prestige. JAMA. 2016;316(12):1315–6.
8.
LinkAM.US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA. 1998;280(3):246–7.
9.
SchererLDZikmund-FisherBJ.Eliciting medical maximizing-minimizing preferences with a single question: development and validation of the MM1. Med Decis Making. 2020;40(4):545–50.
