Peer review: single-blind, double-blind, or all the way-blind?

@article{Bazi2019PeerRS,
  title={Peer review: single-blind, double-blind, or all the way-blind?},
  author={T. Bazi},
  journal={International Urogynecology Journal},
  year={2019},
  volume={31},
  pages={481-483}
}
  • T. Bazi
  • Published 2019
  • Medicine
  • International Urogynecology Journal
A scholarly peer review is the process whereby referees scrutinize research work or a manuscript within their field of expertise and decide on its acceptability for publication in a journal or scientific proceeding. Ideally, peer review is impartial. Among the many models of peer review, the single blind is currently the most adopted model in scientific journals. The double-blind model has been claimed to decrease bias, despite some difficulty in implementation. 

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 20 REFERENCES
Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review
Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review
Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi‐rater study
Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review
Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige.
...
1
2
...