Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology
Research Article

Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review

View ORCID ProfileAndrew Tomkins, Min Zhang, and William D. Heavlin
PNAS November 28, 2017 114 (48) 12708-12713; first published November 14, 2017; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114
Andrew Tomkins
aGoogle, Inc., Mountain View, CA 94043;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Andrew Tomkins
  • For correspondence: atomkins@gmail.com
Min Zhang
bState Key Laboratory of Intelligent Technology and Systems, Department of Computer Science and Technology, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William D. Heavlin
aGoogle, Inc., Mountain View, CA 94043;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  1. Edited by Susan T. Fiske, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved October 10, 2017 (received for review May 3, 2017)

This article has a Letter. Please see:

  • Radiation oncology authors and reviewers prefer double-blind peer review - February 06, 2018

See related content:

  • IJROBP study consistent with our findings
    - Feb 06, 2018
  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Online Impact

 

Article Information

vol. 114 no. 48 12708-12713
DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114
PubMed: 
29138317

Published By: 
National Academy of Sciences
Print ISSN: 
0027-8424
Online ISSN: 
1091-6490
History: 
  • Published in issue November 28, 2017.
  • Published first November 14, 2017.

Article Versions

  • Previous version (November 14, 2017 - 08:42).
  • You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Copyright & Usage: 
Copyright © 2017 the Author(s). Published by PNAS. This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND).

Author Information

  1. Andrew Tomkinsa,1,
  2. Min Zhangb, and
  3. William D. Heavlina
  1. aGoogle, Inc., Mountain View, CA 94043;
  2. bState Key Laboratory of Intelligent Technology and Systems, Department of Computer Science and Technology, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
  1. Edited by Susan T. Fiske, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved October 10, 2017 (received for review May 3, 2017)

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: atomkins{at}gmail.com.
  • An extended abstract of this work has been previously posted as a preprint (1).

  • Author contributions: A.T. and M.Z. designed research; A.T. and M.Z. performed research; W.D.H. analyzed data; and A.T., M.Z., and W.D.H. wrote the paper.

  • Conflict of interest statement: A.T. and W.D.H. are employed and paid by Google, Inc. Google often provides funding to conferences, including the WSDM conference studied in this work.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

  • This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1707323114/-/DCSupplemental.

Cited By...

  • 72 Citations
  • 95 Citations
  • Google Scholar

This article has been cited by the following articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

  • Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond
    Christopher Allen, David M. A. Mehler
    PLOS Biology 2019 17 5
  • A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review
    Jonathan P. Tennant, Jonathan M. Dugan, Daniel Graziotin, Damien C. Jacques, François Waldner, Daniel Mietchen, Yehia Elkhatib, Lauren B. Collister, Christina K. Pikas, Tom Crick, Paola Masuzzo, Anthony Caravaggi, Devin R. Berg, Kyle E. Niemeyer, Tony Ross-Hellauer, Sara Mannheimer, Lillian Rigling, Daniel S. Katz, Bastian Greshake Tzovaras, Josmel Pacheco-Mendoza, Nazeefa Fatima, Marta Poblet, Marios Isaakidis, Dasapta Erwin Irawan, Sébastien Renaut, Christopher R. Madan, Lisa Matthias, Jesper Nørgaard Kjær, Daniel Paul O'Donnell, Cameron Neylon, Sarah Kearns, Manojkumar Selvaraju, Julien Colomb
    F1000Research 2017 6
  • The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals
    Giangiacomo Bravo, Francisco Grimaldo, Emilia López-Iñesta, Bahar Mehmani, Flaminio Squazzoni
    Nature Communications 2019 10 1
  • Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution
    Charles W. Fox, C. E. Timothy Paine
    Ecology and Evolution 2019 9 6
  • The state of the art in peer review
    Jonathan P Tennant
    FEMS Microbiology Letters 2018 365 19
  • Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review
    Samir Haffar, Fateh Bazerbachi, M. Hassan Murad
    Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2019 94 4
  • Publish and Who Should Perish: You or Science?
    Ádám Kun
    Publications 2018 6 2
  • A Call for Open Science in Giftedness Research
    Matthew T. McBee, Matthew C. Makel, Scott J. Peters, Michael S. Matthews
    Gifted Child Quarterly 2018 62 4
  • The Role of Gender in Publication in The Journal of Pediatrics 2015-2016: Equal Reviews, Unequal Opportunities
    Wadsworth A. Williams, Katherine L. Garvey, Denise M. Goodman, Diane S. Lauderdale, Lainie Friedman Ross
    The Journal of Pediatrics 2018 200
  • Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics
    Barbara McGillivray, Elisa De Ranieri
    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2018 3 1
  • Power in Editorial Positions: A Feminist Critique of Public Administration
    Mary K. Feeney, Lisa Carson, Helen Dickinson
    Public Administration Review 2019 79 1
  • How gender determines the way we speak about professionals
    Stav Atir, Melissa J. Ferguson
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2018 115 28
  • Little race or gender bias in an experiment of initial review of NIH R01 grant proposals
    Patrick S. Forscher, William T. L. Cox, Markus Brauer, Patricia G. Devine
    Nature Human Behaviour 2019 3 3
  • The cases for and against double-blind reviews
    Amelia R. Cox, Robert Montgomerie
    PeerJ 2019 7
  • The limitations to our understanding of peer review
    Jonathan P. Tennant, Tony Ross-Hellauer
    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2020 5 1
  • What does better peer review look like? Underlying principles and recommendations for better practice
    Heidi Allen, Alexandra Cury, Thomas Gaston, Chris Graf, Hannah Wakley, Michael Willis
    Learned Publishing 2019 32 2
  • Examining scientific writing styles from the perspective of linguistic complexity
    Chao Lu, Yi Bu, Jie Wang, Ying Ding, Vetle Torvik, Matthew Schnaars, Chengzhi Zhang
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2019 70 5
  • It is time to overcome unconscious bias in ecology
    Julia K. Baum, Tara G. Martin
    Nature Ecology & Evolution 2018 2 2
  • Double‐blind peer review—An experiment
    Charles W. Fox, Ken Thompson, Alan Knapp, Lara A. Ferry, Enrico L. Rezende, Emilie Aimé, Jennifer Meyer
    Functional Ecology 2019 33 1
  • Peer Review of Reviewers: The Author’s Perspective
    Ivana Drvenica, Giangiacomo Bravo, Lucija Vejmelka, Aleksandar Dekanski, Olgica Nedić
    Publications 2018 7 1
  • Radiation oncology authors and reviewers prefer double-blind peer review
    Katherine Egan Bennett, Reshma Jagsi, Anthony Zietman
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2018 115 9
  • Addressing the “Bias Gap”: A Research-Driven Argument for Critical Support of Plurilingual Scientists’ Research Writing
    James Corcoran
    Written Communication 2019 36 4
  • Measuring bias, burden and conservatism in research funding processes
    Susan Guthrie, Daniela Rodriguez Rincon, Gordon McInroy, Becky Ioppolo, Salil Gunashekar
    F1000Research 2019 8
  • Open science and modified funding lotteries can impede the natural selection of bad science
    Paul E. Smaldino, Matthew A. Turner, Pablo A. Contreras Kallens
    Royal Society Open Science 2019 6 7
  • A Model of Political Bias in Social Science Research
    Nathan Honeycutt, Lee Jussim
    Psychological Inquiry 2020 31 1
  • Are scientific editors reliable gatekeepers of the publication process?
    Richard B. Primack, Tracey J. Regan, Vincent Devictor, Lucy Zipf, Laurent Godet, Rafael Loyola, Bea Maas, Robin J. Pakeman, Graeme S. Cumming, Amanda E. Bates, Liba Pejchar, Lian Pin Koh
    Biological Conservation 2019 238
  • Article placement order in rheumatology journals: a content analysis
    Sarah Stewart, Greg Gamble, Andrew Grey, Nicola Dalbeth
    BMJ Open 2020 10 6
  • Disrupting medical publishing and the future of medical journals: a personal view
    Christine E Gee, Nicholas J Talley AC
    Medical Journal of Australia 2019 211 4
  • Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?
    Marcel Knöchelmann
    Publications 2019 7 4
  • Strengthening literature search strategies for systematic reviews reporting population health in the Middle East and North Africa: A meta‐research study
    Karima Chaabna, Sohaila Cheema, Amit Abraham, Ravinder Mamtani
    Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine 2020 13 3
  • A Case for Double-Blind Review
    Laura E. Hirshfield
    Academic Medicine 2020 95 11
  • Breaking Groupthink: Why Scientific Identity and Norms Mitigate Ideological Epistemology
    Jay J. Van Bavel, Diego A. Reinero, Elizabeth Harris, Claire E. Robertson, Philip Pärnamets
    Psychological Inquiry 2020 31 1
  • Editorial: Science Needs an Inclusive and Transparent Publication Process—How Integrative and Comparative Biology Works Toward This Aim
    Ulrike K Müller
    Integrative and Comparative Biology 2019 59 6
  • Emerging trends: Reviewing the reviewers (again)
    Kenneth Ward Church
    Natural Language Engineering 2020 26 2
  • Estimating the deep replicability of scientific findings using human and artificial intelligence
    Yang Yang, Wu Youyou, Brian Uzzi
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2020 117 20
  • Gender Equality and Positive Action: Evidence from UK Universities
    Danula K. Gamage, Almudena Sevilla
    AEA Papers and Proceedings 2019 109
  • Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research
    Julie Posselt, Theresa E. Hernandez, Cynthia D. Villarreal, Aireale J. Rodgers, Lauren N. Irwin
    2020 35
  • International authorship in leading world journals on incontinence and pelvic floor disorders: Is it truly international?
    Wassim Najjar, Marco Abdo Mouanness, Georges Rameh, Tony Bazi
    European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2019 241
  • Perspectives on double‐blind peer review from collectivist cultural contexts
    Jose Florencio F Lapeña, Peter L Munk, Aik Saw, Wilfred CG Peh
    Medical Journal of Australia 2019 210 8
  • Political Discrimination in the Law Review Selection Process
    Adam S. Chilton, Jonathan S. Masur, Kyle Rozema
    SSRN Electronic Journal 2018
  • Political Ideology and the Law Review Selection Process
    Adam Chilton, Jonathan Masur, Kyle Rozema
    American Law and Economics Review 2020 22 1
  • Research funding: past performance is a stronger predictor of future scientific output than reviewer scores
    Balázs Győrffy, Péter Herman, István Szabó
    Journal of Informetrics 2020 14 3
  • Research on research funding: an imperative for science and society
    Anna Severin, Matthias Egger
    British Journal of Sports Medicine 2020
  • Reviewer Blinding in Peer Review
    Vaibhav Gupta, Natalie G. Coburn, Allan S. Detsky
    Annals of Surgery 2020 272 1
  • SETAC journals adopt double‐blind peer review
    Charles Menzie
    Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 2019 15 1
  • The role of geographic bias in knowledge diffusion: a systematic review and narrative synthesis
    Mark Skopec, Hamdi Issa, Julie Reed, Matthew Harris
    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2020 5 1
  • Authorship trends in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis : An update
    Michael P. Kranak, John Michael Falligant, Peter Bradtke, Nicole L. Hausman, Griffin W. Rooker
    Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 2020 53 4
  • A Call for Explainer/Tutorial Articles and Changes to Manuscript Submission and Review at MDM and MDM P&P
    Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher
    MDM Policy & Practice 2020 5 2
  • A Call for Explainer/Tutorial Articles and Changes to Manuscript Submission and Review at MDM and MDM P&P
    Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher
    Medical Decision Making 2020 40 7
  • A survey of accepted authors in computer systems conferences
    Eitan Frachtenberg, Noah Koster
    PeerJ Computer Science 2020 6
  • An automated conflict of interest based greedy approach for conference paper assignment system
    Dinesh K. Pradhan, Joyita Chakraborty, Prasenjit Choudhary, Subrata Nandi
    Journal of Informetrics 2020 14 2
  • Authorship in top-ranked mathematical and physical journals: Role of gender on self-perceptions and bibliographic evidence
    Helena Mihaljević, Lucía Santamaría
    Quantitative Science Studies 2020 1 4
  • Authorship inequality: a bibliometric study of the concentration of authorship among a diminishing number of individuals in high-impact medical journals, 2008–2019
    Kamber L Hart, Roy H Perlis
    BMJ Open 2021 11 1
  • Cognitive Bias in the Peer Review Process
    Chris Street, Kerry W. Ward
    ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems 2019 50 4
  • Construction and validation of a short multidisciplinary research performance questionnaire (SMRPQ)
    Martin Daumiller, Stefan Siegel, Markus Dresel
    Research Evaluation 2019 28 3
  • Constructive peer review
    Sora Yasri, Viroj Wiwanitkit
    Journal of Dental Research and Review 2019 6 2
  • Correction to ‘Open science and modified funding lotteries can impede the natural selection of bad science’
    Paul E. Smaldino, Matthew A. Turner, Pablo A. Contreras Kallens
    Royal Society Open Science 2019 6 8
  • Curating more diverse scientific conferences
    Anne-Marie M. Oswald, Srdjan Ostojic
    Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2020 21 11
  • Demonstration of inferring causality from relational databases with CaRL
    Moe Kayali, Babak Salimi, Dan Suciu
    Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 2020 13 12
  • Digital Libraries: Supporting Open Science
    Michael Soprano, Stefano Mizzaro
    2019 988
  • Does the pressure to fill journal quotas bias evaluation?: Evidence from publication delays and rejection rates
    Brian Park, Eunhee Sohn, Soohun Kim, Sergio A. Useche
    PLOS ONE 2020 15 8
  • Double Standard or Double Blinded? An Argument for All Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals
    Gaby Moawad, Paul Tyan, Sara Rahman
    Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 2019 26 5
  • Double-blind reviewing and gender biases at EvoLang conferences: An update
    Christine Cuskley, Seán G Roberts, Stephen Politzer-Ahles, Tessa Verhoef
    Journal of Language Evolution 2019
  • Dynamic interactionism between research fraud and research culture: a commentary to Harvey’s analysis
    Mehmet A. Orhan
    Quality in Higher Education 2021
  • Editorial: Announcing the Double-Blind Review Option
    Wei Chen
    Journal of Mechanical Design 2020 142 8
  • Editorial: Save Your Energy, Research Catalysis!
    Michael A. Rowan
    ChemCatChem 2020 12 1
  • Fairness and transparency in medical journals
    Dirk M. Elston, Jane M. Grant-Kels, Nikki Levin, Murad Alam, Emily M. Altman, Robert T. Brodell, Anthony P. Fernandez, M. Yadira Hurley, John Maize, Desiree Ratner, Julie Schaffer
    Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 2020
  • Females Are First Authors, Sole Authors, and Reviewers of Entomology Publications Significantly Less Often Than Males
    Karen A Walker, Kelley Tilmon
    Annals of the Entomological Society of America 2020 113 3
  • Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity
    Jason Roberts, Kristen Overstreet, Rachel Hendrick, Jennifer Mahar
    2020
  • Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity
    Jason Roberts, Kristen Overstreet, Rachel Hendrick, Jennifer Mahar
    2020
  • Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research
    Julie Posselt, Theresa E. Hernandez, Cynthia D. Villarreal, Aireale J. Rodgers, Lauren N. Irwin
    2020 35
  • Information Retrieval: A Biomedical and Health Perspective
    William Hersh
    2020
  • Is the Political Slant of Psychology Research Related to Scientific Replicability?
    Diego A. Reinero, Julian A. Wills, William J. Brady, Peter Mende-Siedlecki, Jarret T. Crawford, Jay J. Van Bavel
    Perspectives on Psychological Science 2020 15 6
  • Laughter through tears: Unprofessional review comments as humor on the ShitMyReviewersSay Twitter account
    Marta Dynel
    Intercultural Pragmatics 2020 17 5
  • Medical publishing under review
    Harriette Gillian Christine Van Spall, Sera Whitelaw
    European Heart Journal 2020
  • Men, women and STEM: Why the differences and what should be done?
    Steve Stewart-Williams, Lewis G Halsey
    European Journal of Personality 2021 35 1
  • Not So Simple: Science is in the Details
    Flavio Azevedo
    Psychological Inquiry 2020 31 1
  • Offering authors a choice: introduction of optional double-blind peer review
    Kristopher McNeill, Paige J. Novak, Peter J. Vikesland
    Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts 2020 22 1
  • Offering authors a choice: introduction of optional double-blind peer review
    Kristopher McNeill, Paige J. Novak, Peter J. Vikesland
    Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology 2020 6 1
  • Offering authors a choice: introduction of optional double-blind peer review
    Kristopher McNeill, Paige J. Novak, Peter J. Vikesland
    Environmental Science: Nano 2020 7 1
  • Open versus blind peer review: is anonymity better than transparency?
    Natalie Shoham, Alexandra Pitman
    BJPsych Advances 2020
  • Peer review and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals
    Flaminio Squazzoni, Giangiacomo Bravo, Mike Farjam, Ana Marusic, Bahar Mehmani, Michael Willis, Aliaksandr Birukou, Pierpaolo Dondio, Francisco Grimaldo
    Science Advances 2021 7 2
  • Peer review practices by medical imaging journals
    Thomas C. Kwee, Hugo J. A. Adams, Robert M. Kwee
    Insights into Imaging 2020 11 1
  • Peer review: single-blind, double-blind, or all the way-blind?
    Tony Bazi
    International Urogynecology Journal 2020 31 3
  • Preprints in Medicine: Useful or Harmful?
    Bruno Bonnechère
    Frontiers in Medicine 2020 7
  • Publish-and-Flourish: Using Blockchain Platform to Enable Cooperative Scholarly Communication
    Emilija Stojmenova Duh, Andrej Duh, Uroš Droftina, Tim Kos, Urban Duh, Tanja Simonič Korošak, Dean Korošak
    Publications 2019 7 2
  • Reply to Bennett et al.: IJROBP study is consistent with our findings and offers insights on author preferences
    Andrew Tomkins, William D. Heavlin, Min Zhang
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2018 115 9
  • Reply to Coudray
    Bayu Sutarjono
    The Journal of Infectious Diseases 2019 220 5
  • Reviewers’ Self-Awareness and Its Impact on the Peer Review Process
    Francesco Torella, Stavros A. Antoniou, George A. Antoniou
    European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 2020
  • Reviewing articles as a way of professional evaluation of scientific texts: organizational and ethical aspects
    Svitlana Fiialka, Olga Trishchuk, Nadija Figol
    Knowledge and Performance Management 2020 4 1
  • Revolutionizing Education in the Age of AI and Machine Learning
    Luis Ibarra, Arturo Soriano, Pedro Ponce, Arturo Molina
    2020
  • SETAC journals adopt double-blind peer review
    Charles Menzie
    Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 2019 38 1
  • Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: How to Choose a Journal?
    Zahra Bahadoran, Parvin Mirmiran, Khosrow Kashfi, Asghar Ghasemi
    International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism 2020 In Press In Press
  • The cichlid–Cichlidogyrus network: a blueprint for a model system of parasite evolution
    Armando J. Cruz-Laufer, Tom Artois, Karen Smeets, Antoine Pariselle, Maarten P. M. Vanhove
    Hydrobiologia 2020
  • The state of population health research performance in the Middle East and North Africa: a meta-research study
    Karima Chaabna, Sohaila Cheema, Amit Abraham, Patrick Maisonneuve, Albert B. Lowenfels, Ravinder Mamtani
    Systematic Reviews 2021 10 1

Article usage

Article usage: November 2017 to January 2021

AbstractFullPdf
Nov 201714109734012270
Dec 2017854116374309
Total 201722650897716579
Jan 201830302078969
Feb 2018797684327
Mar 20188931023539
Apr 2018633822285
May 201819561715297
Jun 201811751309259
Jul 2018411516253
Aug 2018430454134
Sep 2018397445133
Oct 201899541177
Nov 201872464154
Dec 201826411127
Total 20189919104623654
Jan 20197045895
Feb 201935370119
Mar 201968461117
Apr 201919403169
May 201918703118
Jun 201921551121
Jul 20191345476
Aug 201915480132
Sep 201916523158
Oct 2019753793
Nov 201951536110
Dec 2019315651546
Total 2019364111271854
Jan 2020421371231
Feb 2020301118210
Mar 202030839284
Apr 202019875232
May 202027907225
Jun 2020151253214
Jul 202024794124
Aug 202011661131
Sep 2020161659222
Oct 2020371181200
Nov 2020512263319
Dec 2020251080140
Total 2020327140012532
Jan 2021340471
Total 2021340471
Total332634497124690
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Single- vs. double-blind reviewing at WSDM 2017
Andrew Tomkins, Min Zhang, William D. Heavlin
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Nov 2017, 114 (48) 12708-12713; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1707323114

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Single- vs. double-blind reviewing at WSDM 2017
Andrew Tomkins, Min Zhang, William D. Heavlin
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Nov 2017, 114 (48) 12708-12713; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1707323114
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 114 (48)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Article Classifications

  • Social Sciences
  • Social Sciences
  • Physical Sciences
  • Computer Sciences

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Abstract depiction of a guitar and musical note
Science & Culture: At the nexus of music and medicine, some see disease treatments
Although the evidence is still limited, a growing body of research suggests music may have beneficial effects for diseases such as Parkinson’s.
Image credit: Shutterstock/agsandrew.
Scientist looking at an electronic tablet
Opinion: Standardizing gene product nomenclature—a call to action
Biomedical communities and journals need to standardize nomenclature of gene products to enhance accuracy in scientific and public communication.
Image credit: Shutterstock/greenbutterfly.
One red and one yellow modeled protein structures
Journal Club: Study reveals evolutionary origins of fold-switching protein
Shapeshifting designs could have wide-ranging pharmaceutical and biomedical applications in coming years.
Image credit: Acacia Dishman/Medical College of Wisconsin.
White and blue bird
Hazards of ozone pollution to birds
Amanda Rodewald, Ivan Rudik, and Catherine Kling talk about the hazards of ozone pollution to birds.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Goats standing in a pin
Transplantation of sperm-producing stem cells
CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing can improve the effectiveness of spermatogonial stem cell transplantation in mice and livestock, a study finds.
Image credit: Jon M. Oatley.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Archive

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490