Double-Blind Review: A Commitment to Fair Editorial Practices

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-119
Author(s):  
Sarah M. Pritchard
Keyword(s):  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Editorial Practices

Torn between the Old and New World of Work: Insights into the Modernised Semi-Profession of the Fashion IndustryDate submitted: December 31, 2019Date accepted after double-blind review: February 1, 2021

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 244-265
Author(s):  
Alexandra Manske
Keyword(s):  
Role Model ◽  
New World ◽  
Creative Industries ◽  
Gender Inequalities ◽  
Fashion Industry ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Training Structures ◽  
Cultural And Creative Industries ◽  
Low Pay

This paper explores how persistent gender inequalities of the old world of work are amplified by the new world of work. Focusing on the fashion industry of Berlin, the article offers insight into a female-dominated field of labour as a particular field of labour of the cultural and creative industries (CCI). The CCI is regarded as a role model for new work. However, they entail deep gender inequalities in terms of segregation, low status and low pay. The paper addresses the question of how these gendered inequalities in the fashion industry are intertwined with its professional mechanisms and training structures. Based on a qualitative study, I argue that the fashion industry is a modernised semi-profession, which has been undergoing a market-driven professionalisation. However, this new pathway into the fashion industry fails to fully professionalise that industry. On contrary, it erects new occupational barriers into the field of labour that help establish high qualified and low qualified fashion work that also aids in polarising the still mostly female workforce in terms of status and rewards. Overall, it should become clear that the fashion industry is torn between the old and new world of work which helps to maintain or even reinforce traditional gender inequalities.

scholarly journals Clinical Research Informatics Contributions from 2015

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (01) ◽  
pp. 219-223
Author(s):  
R. Choquet ◽  
C. Daniel ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Research ◽  
Data Privacy ◽  
Design Stage ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Legal Requirements ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Healthcare Data ◽  
Clinical Research Informatics ◽  
Electronic Health

Summary Objectives: To summarize key contributions to current research in the field of Clinical Research Informatics (CRI) and to select best papers published in 2015. Method: A bibliographic search using a combination of MeSH and free terms search over PubMed on Clinical Research Informatics (CRI) was performed followed by a double-blind review in order to select a list of candidate best papers to be then peer-reviewed by external reviewers. A consensus meeting between the two section editors and the editorial team was finally organized to conclude on the selection of best papers. Results: Among the 579 returned papers published in the past year in the various areas of Clinical Research Informatics (CRI) - i) methods supporting clinical research, ii) data sharing and interoperability, iii) re-use of healthcare data for research, iv) patient recruitment and engagement, v) data privacy, security and regulatory issues and vi) policy and perspectives - the full review process selected four best papers. The first selected paper evaluates the capability of the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) Operational Data Model (ODM) to support the representation of case report forms (in both the design stage and with patient level data) during a complete clinical study lifecycle. The second selected paper describes a prototype for secondary use of electronic health records data captured in non-standardized text. The third selected paper presents a privacy preserving electronic health record linkage tool and the last selected paper describes how big data use in US relies on access to health information governed by varying and often misunderstood legal requirements and ethical considerations. Conclusions: A major trend in the 2015 publications is the analysis of observational, “nonexperimental” information and the potential biases and confounding factors hidden in the data that will have to be carefully taken into account to validate new predictive models. In addiction, researchers have to understand complicated and sometimes contradictory legal requirements and to consider ethical obligations in order to balance privacy and promoting discovery.

Does double-blind review favor female authors?

2008 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. 354-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katrin Hammerschmidt ◽  
Klaus Reinhardt ◽  
Jens Rolff
Keyword(s):  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Female Authors

scholarly journals Double-blind review: the paw print is a giveaway

Nature ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 452 (7183) ◽  
pp. 28-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Razi Naqvi
Keyword(s):  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review

Response to Webb et al.: Double-blind review: accept with minor revisions

2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (7) ◽  
pp. 353-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amber E. Budden ◽  
Christopher J. Lortie ◽  
Tom Tregenza ◽  
Lonnie Aarssen ◽  
Julia Koricheva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review

Acute Headache and Subarachnoid Haemorrhage: A Retrospective Review of CT and Lumbar Puncture Findings

2005 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 151-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
J O'Neill ◽  
S McLaggan ◽  
R Gibson
Keyword(s):  
Subarachnoid Haemorrhage ◽  
Lumbar Puncture ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Clinical Notes ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Cranial Ct ◽  
Accident And Emergency ◽  
Clinical Presentations ◽  
Acute Headache

Aim: Assess and correlate the clinical presentation, cranial CT and lumbar puncture (LP) findings in patients presenting with acute headache, clinically suspicious of subarachnoid haemorrhage, from the Accident and Emergency (A/E) department of a main teaching hospital. Method: We retrospectively reviewed over a 1-year period all patients referred for cranial CT from the A/E department, with clinically suspected nontraumatic SAH. Patients with a negative CT, with a diagnosis of SAH on LP, had their initial CT examination reassessed in a double blind review. Results: 116 consecutive patients were included in the study. Patients were divided into 3 groups post CT results: diagnostic of SAH (19), abnormal without evidence of SAH (16) and normal (81). The clinical management of the latter group was analysed with particular emphasis on the performance and results of lumbar puncture (LP). 81 patients, clinically suspicious of SAH in our study had a normal cranial CT and were eligible for LP. 49% had an LP, which was positive in 13% and contributed 24% to the total number diagnosed with SAH. LP was not performed in 51% of eligible patients. Conclusion: This study reviews the varying clinical presentations of SAH and the difficulty in clinically diagnosing SAH where headache is the only symptom. We review the wide differential diagnosis on cranial CT and on discharge of patients presenting with symptoms clinically suspicious of SAH. In addition this study identifies a high proportion of patients without detailed clinical notes and discharged without a diagnosis. The study reaffirms that a significant proportion of patients are diagnosed on LP and stress the importance of performing a LP in all cases with clinically suspected SAH with a negative CT. This latter point requires highlighting in the medical literature as over half of eligible patients did not have a LP performed despite this being accepted diagnostic protocol.

The Future of Double-Blind Review in Management

2007 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 622-627 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy J. Hillman ◽  
Sara L. Rynes
Keyword(s):  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
The Future

Corporate Social Responsibility: A Fake Already According to the Theory of the Firm?Date submitted: October 4, 2017Revised version accepted after double blind review: August 31, 2018

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 154-172
Author(s):  
Ute Schmiel
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Social Responsibility ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Social Responsibility ◽  
Theory Of The Firm ◽  
Ethical Dimension ◽  
Socially Responsible ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Critical Rationalist ◽  
Corporate Social

This paper asks if we can support by argument the norm “we should hold firms responsible”. From a critical rationalist perspective, answering this question has an ethical and an empirical dimension. The ethical dimension discusses whether we should hold firms socially responsible for ethical reasons. However, since demanding that we should hold firms responsible requires that we can hold them responsible, this paper focuses on this empirical dimension. Thus, this paper asks whether we can hold firms responsible for theoretical reasons. Theoretical reasons means that this paper refers to theories of the firm and in particular to their hypotheses about the behaviour of firms and firm members. The paper finds that the nexus of contracts approach (which is the economic mainstream theory of the firm) ascribes behaviour to the firm that corresponds to the firm members’ behaviour. In consequence, we would not have reasons to ascribe responsibility to the firm from a social science perspective. Since the nexus of contracts approach is not adequate from a critical rationalist perspective, however, this paper develops an extended corporate actors approach. In contrast to the nexus of contacts approach, the extended corporate actors approach ascribes behaviour to the firm that differs from firm members’ actions. Thus, we do have reasons to ascribe responsibility to the firm from a social science perspective.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document