Skip to main content
Log in

Blind Manuscript Submission to Reduce Rejection Bias?

  • Opinion
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics 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.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Budden, A. E., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L. W., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., & Lortie, C. J. (2008). Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(1), 4–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kmietowicz, Z. (2008). Double blind peer reviews are fairer and more objective, say academics. British Medical Journal, 336(7638), 241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(41), 16474–16479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moustafa, K. (2014). The disaster of the impact factor. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9517-0.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Khaled Moustafa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moustafa, K. Blind Manuscript Submission to Reduce Rejection Bias?. Sci Eng Ethics 21, 535–539 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9547-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9547-7

Keywords

Navigation