To identify or not to identify: a choice in chemistry education research and practice-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

To identify or not to identify: a choice in chemistry education research and practice

Published:2024 Issue:2 Volume:25 Page:380-382
ISSN:1109-4028
Container-title:Chemistry Education Research and Practice
language:en
Short-container-title:Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.

Author:

Barbera Jack¹^ORCID,Lewis Scott E.²^ORCID,Nyachwaya James³^ORCID,Graulich Nicole⁴^ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Chemistry, Portland State University, USA

2. Department of Chemistry, University of South Florida, USA

3. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and School of Education, North Dakota State University, USA

4. Institute of Chemistry Education, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Giessen, Germany

Publisher

Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)

Link

http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2024/RP/D4RP90003K

Reference10 articles.

1. Blank R. M., (1991), The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: Experimental evidence from The American Economic Review, Am. Econ. Rev. , 81 , 1041–1067

2. Fox C. W., Meyer J. and Aimé E., (2002), Double-blind peer review affects reviewer ratings and editor decisions at an ecology journal, Funct. Ecol. , 37 , 1144–1157

3. Graulich N., Kahveci A., Lawrie G. A., Lewis S. E. and Nyachwaya J., (2023), Laying the foundations to build on: exploring diversity in our Chemistry Education Research & Practice community, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. , 24 , 8–11

4. Huber J., Inoua S., Kerschbamer R., König-Kersting C., Palan S. and Smith V. L., (2022), Nobel and novice: Author prominence affects peer review, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. , 119 , 1–7

5. Knobloch-Westerwick S., Glynn C. J. and Huge M., (2013), The Matilda effect in science communication, Sci. Commun. , 35 , 603–625