Engage in Open Science Practices With the Anonymity of Batman: Protecting Your Secret Identity During Peer Review

Anderson S. Cameron C. D. (2023). How the self guides empathy choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 106, Article 104444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104444

Auster B. C. J. (2024). Understanding disciplinary differences in peer review. American Association of University Professors. https://www.aaup.org/article/understanding-disciplinary-differences-peer-review

Banks G. C. Field J. G. Oswald F. L. O’Boyle E. H. Landis R. S. Rupp D. E. Rogelberg S. G. (2019). Answers to 18 questions about open science practices. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(3), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9547-8

Banks G. C. O’Boyle E. H. Pollack J. M. White C. D. Batchelor J. H. Whelpley C. E. Abston K. A. Bennett A. A. Adkins C. L. (2016). Questions about questionable research practices in the field of management: A guest commentary. Journal of Management, 42(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315619011

Blank R. (1991). The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: Experimental evidence from the American economic review. The American Economic Review, 81(5), 1041–1067.

Bowman N. D. Spence P. R. (2020). Challenges and best practices associated with sharing research materials and research data for communication scholars. Communication Studies, 71(4), 708–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2020.1799488

Brady G. L. Sivanathan N. (2024). More than meets the eye: The unintended consequence of leader dominance orientation on subordinate ethicality. Organization Science, 35(4), 1322–1341. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.15640

Briker R. (2024). LinkedIn post. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/roman-briker-607265a1_as-an-enthusiast-of-open-science-it-worries-activity-7236993743730462723-dNOt?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

Briker R. Gerpott F. H. (2023). Publishing registered reports in management and applied psychology: Common beliefs and best practices. Organizational Research Methods, 27(4), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281231210309

Carland J. A. Carland J. W. Aby Jr., C. D. (1992). Proposed codification of ethicacy in the publication process. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(2), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00872316

Castille C. M. Kreamer L. M. Albritton B. H. Banks G. C. Rogelberg S. G. (2022). The open science challenge: Adopt one practice that enacts widely shared values. Journal of Business and Psychology, 37(3), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09806-2

Ferguson J. Littman R. Christensen G. Paluck E. L. Swanson N. Wang Z. Miguel E. Birke D. Pezzuto J. (2023). Survey of open science practices and attitudes in the social sciences. Nature Communications, 14(1), 5401. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41111-1

Giannakakos V. P. Karanfilian T. S. Dimopoulos A. D. Barmettler A. (2025). Impact of author characteristics on outcomes of single- versus double-blind peer review: A systematic review of comparative studies in scientific abstracts and publications. Scientometrics, 130(1), 399–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05213-x

Grant D. B. Kovács G. Spens K. (2018). Questionable research practices in academia: Antecedents and consequences. European Business Review, 30(2), 101–127. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-12-2016-0155

Hardin A. E. Schinoff B. S. Byron K. Balven R. M. (2025). A window into coworkers’ worlds : The relational outcomes of learning vivid, unintentional, and nonwork-related information about coworkers. Academy of Management Journal, 68(2), 267–296. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2022.0683

Hillman A. J. Rynes S. L. (2007). The future of double-blind review in management. Journal of Management Studies, 44(4), 622–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00703.x

Journal of Applied Psychology . (2025). Masked review policy. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/apl?tab=5#tabs

König T. Ropers G. (2018). Gender and editorial outcomes at the American political science review. PS: Political Science and Politics, 51(4), 849–853.

Le Goues C. Brun Y. Apel S. Berger E. Khurshid S. Smaragdakis Y. (2018). Viewpoint effectiveness of anonymization in double-blind review. Communications of the ACM, 61(6), 30–33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3208157

Lipworth W. L. Kerridge I. H. Carter S. M. Little M. (2011). Journal peer review in context: A qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing. Social Science & Medicine, 72(7), 1056–1063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.002

Logg J. M. Dorison C. A. (2021). Pre-registration: Weighing costs and benefits for researchers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 167, 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2021.05.006

MacDonald S. Kam J. (2007). Ring a ring o’ roses: Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 44(4), 640–655. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00704.x

Miller A. N. Taylor S. G. Bedeian A. G. (2011). Publish or perish: Academic life as management faculty live it. Career Development International, 16(5), 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431111167751

Morgan J. A. Lindsay B. L. Moran C. (2022). Opening a closed door: A call for nuance in discussions of open science. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 15(4), 537–541. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.72

Nature editors . (2008). Working double-blind: Should there be author anonymity in peer review. Nature, 451(7179), 605–606. https://doi.org/10.1038/451605b

Obenauer W. G. Kalsher M. J. (2023). Does blame always shift? Examining the impact of workplace safety communication language on post-accident blame attributions for multiple entities. Acta Psychologica, 240, Article 104024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.104024

Open Science Framework . (2025). Create a view-only link for a project (OSF projects). OSF Support. https://help.osf.io/article/201-create-a-view-only-link-for-a-project

Parker-Wood A. Long D. D. E. Miller E. Rigaux P. Isaacson A. (2014). A file by any other name: Managing file names with metadata. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM international systems and storage conference, SYSTOR 2014, Haifa, Israel, 10–12 June 2014, pp. 104–107. https://doi.org/10.1145/2611354.2611367

Rudolph C. W. (2021). Improving careers science: Ten recommendations to enhance the credibility of vocational behavior research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 126, Article 103560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103560

Schumacher A. Mai R. (2024). Organizational top dog (vs. underdog) narratives increase the punishment of corporate moral transgressions: When dominance is a liability and prestige is an asset. Journal of Business Ethics, 194(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05574-y

Scott A. J. (2024). Letter: The finagling involved in academic author inflation. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/afc55058-8591-4f99-a5f3-eb4ff77394c3?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Shoham N. Pitman A. (2021). Open versus blind peer review: Is anonymity better than transparency? BJPsych Advances, 27(4), 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1192/bja.2020.61

Simonsohn U. (2023). [115] preregistration prevalence. Data Colada. https://datacolada.org/115

Teele D. L. Thelen K. (2017). Gender in the journals: Publication patterns in political science. Political Science and Politics, 50(2), 433–447. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096516002985

Tomkins A. Zhang M. Heavlin W. D. (2017). Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(48), 12708–12713. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114

Torka A. K. Mazei J. Bosco F. A. Cortina J. M. Götz M. Kepes S. O’Boyle E. H. Hüffmeier J. (2023). How well are open science practices implemented in industrial and organizational psychology and management? European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 32(4), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2023.2206571

Wolff M. S. White J. C. Abraham M. Schnabel C. Wieser L. Niessen C. (2024). The threat of electronic performance monitoring: Exploring the role of leader-member exchange on employee privacy invasion. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 154, Article 104031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2024.104031