References

• 2005An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output11,612 cited
• 1997Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research2,444 cited
• 2006The culture of the new capitalism1,513 cited
• 2006The Culture of the New Capitalism1,105 cited
• 1985The Background of Ecology647 cited
• 1981Chance and Consensus in Peer Review623 cited
• 2007Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors551 cited
• 1989Wissenschaft als Beruf506 cited
• 2016The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review425 cited
• 1997Sense and nonsense about the impact factor286 cited
• 2007Show me the data279 cited
• 2000Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?254 cited
• 2006Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance250 cited
• 2008What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?226 cited
• 2003Impartial Judgment by the “Gatekeepers” of Science: Fallibility and Accountability in the Peer Review Process