SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Peer Review: what it's and what it's for?
12 references·0 citing·45 second hop
Peer Review: what it's and what it's for? (2008)Peer Review: what it's and what it's for?Content and communication: How can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing? (2008)Content and communication: Ho…[How to write a scientific article: how to get your research published]. (2007)[How to write a scientific ar…Through a glass darkly (2006)Through a glass darklyThe purpose of peer review in the case of an open-access publication (2006)The purpose of peer review in…Incidence and Nature of Unblinding by Authors: Our Experience at Two Radiology Journals with Double-Blinded Peer Review Policies (2002)Incidence and Nature of Unbli…El sistema de revisión por expertos (peer review): muchos problemas y pocas soluciones (2002)El sistema de revisión por ex…Peer Review and Quality: A Dubious Connection? (2001)Peer Review and Quality: A Du…Peer review -- process, perspectives and the path ahead. (2001)Peer review -- process, persp…La revisión por pares: ¿buena, mala o todo contrario? (2001)La revisión por pares: ¿buena…Tracking the Peer-Review Process (2000)Tracking the Peer-Review Proc…Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? (2000)Reproducibility of peer revie…The Craft of Scientific Writing (1996)The Craft of Scientific Writi…Little Science, Big Science...and Beyond (1986)Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research (1997)An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output (2005)Peer review and secrecy in the “Information Age” (2008)Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly (2010)Preserving the Quality of Scientific Research: Peer Review of Research Articles (2017)Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality? (1998)Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports (1998)On peer review in computer science: analysis of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvement (2013)Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal (2016)Peer Review: From “Sacred Ideals” to “Profane Realities” (2017)Authors and authorship--reform or abolition? (1997)La calidad de las evaluaciones de manuscritos en GACETA SANITARIA (2002)20+1: un nuevo impulso para la revista (2008)Discourse Community, Legitimate Peripheral Participation, and the Nonnative-English-Speaking Scholar (2000)Professional Academic Writing by Multilingual Scholars (2005)Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial (2012)Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice (2016)Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses (2018)Models of English for research publication purposes (2022)The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. (1979)The Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for Its Occurrence (1990)Publication bias in clinical research (1991)El fraude en la ciencia: reflexiones a partir del caso Hwang (2007)CUERPOS ACADÉMICOS: FACTORES DE INTEGRACIÓN Y PRODUCCIÓN DE CONOCIMIENTO (2010)Current and Evolving Models of Peer Review (2014)Chance and Consensus in Peer Review (1981)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Nepotism and sexism in peer-review (1997)A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants (2010)Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance and Resource Allocation in Science (2014)Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature (2020)How to Fix Peer Review: Separating Its Two Functions—Improving Manuscripts and Judging Their Scientific Merit—Would Help (2005)A review of the review process: manuscript peer-review in biomedical research (2009)Individual Ambidexterity and Performance in the Public Sector: A Multilevel Analysis (2015)Wiki content evaluation framework (2008)Dinâmica das relações entre Ciência e Tecnologia: estudo Bibliométrico e Cientométrico de múltiplos indicadores de artigos e patentes em biodiesel (2010)Peer reviewing an original research paper (2020)Hedging in Scientifically Oriented Discourse. Exploring Variation According to Discipline and Intended Audience (2001)Beyond mood and modality: epistemic modality markers as hedges in research articles. A cross-disciplinary study (2008)Writing to Learn by Learning to Write During the School Science Laboratory: Helping Middle and High School Students Develop Argumentative Writing Skills as They Learn Core Ideas (2013)No further studies are required: Additional notes on avoiding manuscript rejection (2001)The Peer-Review Process and Its Relationship With Environmental and Occupational Health (2008)Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994-2014) (2016)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2000Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?254 cited
  • 1996The Craft of Scientific Writing120 cited
  • 2002El sistema de revisión por expertos (peer review): muchos problemas y pocas soluciones60 cited
  • 2008Content and communication: How can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing?57 cited
  • 2002Incidence and Nature of Unblinding by Authors: Our Experience at Two Radiology Journals with Double-Blinded Peer Review Policies50 cited
  • 2001Peer Review and Quality: A Dubious Connection?25 cited
  • 2006Through a glass darkly20 cited
  • 2000Tracking the Peer-Review Process16 cited
  • 2001Peer review -- process, perspectives and the path ahead.14 cited
  • 2001La revisión por pares: ¿buena, mala o todo contrario?12 cited
  • 2007[How to write a scientific article: how to get your research published].7 cited
  • 2006The purpose of peer review in the case of an open-access publication7 cited

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work