Can “Results Blind Manuscript Evaluation” Assuage “Publication Bias”?

ABSTRACT To stimulate debate, the following commentary discusses the limitations of Dr. Locascio’s results blind manuscript proposal evaluation.

[1]  J. Locascio.  Results Blind Science Publishing , 2017, Basic and applied social psychology.

[2]  Eti Herman,et al.  Scholarly Reputation Building: How does ResearchGate Fare? , 2016 .

[3]  Yuri Niyazov,et al.  Open Access Meets Discoverability: Citations to Articles Posted to Academia.edu , 2016, PloS one.

[4]  M. Hyman,et al.  Surveytainment: a possible solution to declining survey data quality , 2016 .

[5]  D. Nicholas,et al.  Scholarly reputation in the digital age and the role of emerging platforms and mechanisms , 2016 .

[6]  Seema Rawat,et al.  Publish or perish: Where are we heading? , 2014, Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences.

[7]  Jeremy J. Sierra,et al.  Adjusting Self-Reported Attitudinal Data for Mischievous Respondents , 2012 .

[8]  M. Hyman.  Two Challenges for the Three Dichotomies Model , 2006 .

[9]  M. Hyman.  A Critique and Revision of the Multidimensional Ethics Scale , 1996 .

[10]  Philip J. Schmeider.  Stealing into Print: Fraud, Plagiarism, and Misconduct in Scientific Publishing , 1993 .

[11]  J. Juergens.  Research Fraud in the Behavioral and Biomedical Sciences , 1993 .

[12]  Donald P. Robin,et al.  Toward the Development of a Multidimensional Scale for Improving Evaluations of Business Ethics , 1990 .

[13]  Michael R. Hyman,et al.  Marketing and Logical Deduction , 1990 .

[14]  Michael R. Hyman,et al.  Evaluating and Improving Argument-Centered Works in Marketing , 1987 .

[15]  Ann C. Weller,et al.  Betrayers of the Truth , 1984 .