Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
1. ↵ O'Connor EE , Cousar M , Lentini JA , et al . Efficacy of double-blind peer review in an imaging subspecialty journal . AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016 Nov 17 . [Epub ahead of print] doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A5017 CrossRef Google Scholar 2. ↵ Fisher M , Friedman SB , Strauss B . The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review . JAMA 1994 ; 272 : 143 – 46 doi: 10.1001/jama.1994.03520020069019 pmid: 8015127 CrossRef Medline Google Scholar 3. ↵ Isenberg SJ , Sanchez E , Zafran KC . The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer-review process of an ophthalmic journal . Br J Ophthalmol 2009 ; 93 : 881 – 84 doi: 10.1136/bjo.2008.151886 pmid: 19211602 Abstract / FREE Full Text 4. ↵ Okike K , Hug KT , Kocher MS , et al . Single-blind vs double-blind peer review in the setting of author prestige . JAMA 2016 ; 316 : 1315 – 16 doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.11014 pmid: 27673310 CrossRef Medline Google Scholar
American Journal of Neuroradiology – American Journal of Neuroradiology
Published: Feb 1, 2017
You can share this free article with as many people as you like with the url below! We hope you enjoy this feature!
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.