⌘+K

Pulse Explore Communities Researchers Journals

Home Communities Explore

November 1, 2003American Journal of Roentgenology

The Fallacy of Double-Blinded Peer Review

David S. Liebeskind

View at Publisher

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

No abstract yet

We only have this paper's title and publication details.

Read it at the source→

Abstract

The Fallacy of Double-Blinded Peer ReviewDavid S. LiebeskindAudio Available | Share

Discussion

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Cite This Study

David S. Liebeskind (2003) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a72b6008031ec7bb1dd73ee https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.181.5.1811422b

View at Publisher

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Keep reading

Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context:

1Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical PublicationReview · 2002 · 75 citations
2Incidence and Nature of Unblinding by Authors: Our Experience at Two Radiology Journals with Double-Blinded Peer Review PoliciesCohort Study · 2002 · 50 citations
3Blind versus Nonblind Review: Survey of Selected Medical JournalsReview · 1988 · 25 citations
4The CONSORT Statement: Revised Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Reports of Parallel-Group Randomized TrialsRCT · 2001 · 2,545 citations
5MRI Evaluation and Reporting in Suspected and Established Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus, AJR Expert Panel ReviewAmerican Journal of Roentgenology · Wed,

More from American Journal of Roentgenology

Upfront Biparametric MRI for Prostate Cancer Screening: Experience in 618 Korean Men Outside of a Clinical Trial SettingWed,
Fibroblast Activation Protein-Directed PET: Expanding FAPI Beyond CancerWed,
Whole-Body MRI in Asymptomatic Individuals: Promise and Perils— AJR Expert Panel ReviewWed,
Artificial Intelligence–Based Detection of ARIA on MRI During Alzheimer Disease Therapy: Expert Opinion on Responsible Clinical IntegrationWed,
Artificial Intelligence Across the PET Reconstruction Pipeline: An UpdateWed,