J Korean Med Sci.  2014 Oct;29(10):1438-1438. 10.3346/jkms.2014.29.10.1438.

Why Double-Blind Review Is Preferable for Scholarly Journals

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Mechanical Engineering, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran.
  • 2Young Researchers and Elite Club, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran. omid.mahian@gmail.com

Abstract

No abstract available.


MeSH Terms

*Editorial Policies
Humans
*Journalism, Medical
Peer Review, Research/*methods

Reference

1. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Akazhanov NA, Kitas GD. Conflicts of interest in biomedical publications: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Croat Med J. 2013; 54:600–608.
2. Habibzadeh F. Is there an apartheid in science publishing? Lancet. 2013; 382:310.
3. Saeidnia S, Abdollahi M. Consequences of international sanctions on Iranian scientists and the basis of science. Hepat Mon. 2013; 13:e14843.
4. Habibzadeh F. Judge the article, not the author. Croat Med J. 2010; 51:357–358.
5. Twaij H, Oussedik S, Hoffmeyer P. Peer review. Bone Joint J. 2014; 96-B:436–441.
Full Text Links
  • JKMS
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr