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
- KMID: 2129638
- DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2014.29.10.1438
Abstract
- No abstract available.
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
-
- Actions
-
Cited
- CITED
-
- Close
- Share
-
- Similar articles
-
- Recent advances of medical journals in Korea and and further development strategies: Is it possible for them to publish Nobel Prize-winning research?
- Recent Issues in Medical Journal Publishing and Editing Policies: Adoption of Artificial Intelligence, Preprints, Open Peer Review, Model Text Recycling Policies, Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing 4th Version, and Country Names in Titles
- Status of Editing and Publishing of Scholarly Journals by Academic Societies of Science and Technology in Korea
- Plagiarism Continues to Affect Scholarly Journals
- Ethical Reviewers are Essential for Scholarly Journals for Timely Processing of Submissions and Avoiding Retractions
