English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Existing research has found that when a journal transitions from single-blind review to double-blind review, female authorship increases. This article reports the findings of a first-of-its-kind study designed to measure if transitioning to triple-blind review would further reduce gender bias in academic publishing. The findings as to whether triple-blind review is an effective gender bias mitigation strategy helps better inform journals as to the costs and benefits of its implementation. Furthermore, the finding provides a better understanding to the academic community at large regarding issues of gender bias and scholarship. Finally, these findings invite further investigation in future research for peer review best practices and the problem of female underrepresentation in academic publishing.

Triple-blind review as a solution to gender bias in academic publishing, a theoretical approach