SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Suggesting or Excluding Reviewers Can Help Get Your Paper Published
0 references·11 citing·35 second hop
Suggesting or Excluding Reviewers Can Help Get Your Paper Published (2005)Suggesting or Excluding Reviewers Can Hel…Reglas y consejos para ser un buen revisor por pares de manuscritos científicos (2022)Reglas y consejos para ser un…Mastering the scientific peer review process: tips for young authors from a young senior editor (2021)Mastering the scientific peer…How to convince an editor to accept your paper quickly (2021)How to convince an editor to …Current Controversies Regarding Peer Review in Scholarly Journals (2018)Current Controversies Regardi…How to write an article: Preparing a publishable manuscript! (2012)How to write an article: Prep…Writing biomedical manuscripts part II: standard elements and common errors. (2011)Writing biomedical manuscript…Conceptual Debates and Empirical Evidence About the Peer Review Process for Scholarly Journals (2011)Conceptual Debates and Empiri…Research Ethics II: Mentoring, Collaboration, Peer Review, and Data Management and Ownership (2010)Research Ethics II: Mentoring…Ethics in 15 min per Week (2010)Ethics in 15 min per WeekDoes Publication in Top-Tier Journals Affect Reviewer Behavior? (2009)Does Publication in Top-Tier …Peer review and journal models (2006)Peer review and journal modelsThe politics of publication (2003)REVIEW: Questionnaires in ecology: a review of past use and recommendations for best practice (2005)Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (2006)El proceso de “peer-review” en las Revistas Biomédicas: Cualidades de los Revisores de “Excelencia” (2010)Negotiation on the assessment of research articles with academic reviewers: application of peer-review approach of teaching (2010)Scientists behaving badly (2005)The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships (2007)What Do Mentoring and Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research Have To Do with Scientists??? Misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-Funded Scientists (2007)An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: the case of biotechnology (2000)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2011)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Writing biology: texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge (1991)The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process (2000)The vexed question of authorship: views of researchers in a British medical faculty (1997)Unpublished Research From a Medical Specialty Meeting (1998)Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research (2010)Authors attain comparable or slightly higher rates of citation publishing in an open access journal (CytoJournal) compared to traditional cytopathology journals - A five year (2007-2011) experience (2014)Uma Análise Comparativa dos Fatores de Rejeição nos Periódicos de Diferentes Estratos de Administração (2016)Scientific writing and publishing with IMRaD (2019)Nurse editors' views on the peer review process (2005)Authors’ and Editors’ Perspectives on Peer Review Quality in Three Scholarly Nursing Journals (2010)Publishing: The peer-review scam (2014)Unethical practices within medical research and publication – An exploratory study (2021)Reasons Reviewers Reject and Accept Manuscripts (2001)Authorship Criteria and Disclosure of Contributions (2004)Manuscript Rejection (2014)How to be a good peer reviewer of scientific manuscripts (2021)Using Effect Size—or Why the P Value Is Not Enough (2012)Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs (2013)Environmental pollution impacts: Are p values over-valued? (2022)Six statistical issues in scientific writing that might lead to rejection of a manuscript (2022)Reviewing manuscripts for behavior‐analytic journals: A primer (2023)Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (2006)Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review (2017)
this work references cited by second hop

References

No references inside the corpus for this window.

Cited by

  • 2010Research Ethics II: Mentoring, Collaboration, Peer Review, and Data Management and Ownership32 cited
  • 2012How to write an article: Preparing a publishable manuscript!26 cited
  • 2021Mastering the scientific peer review process: tips for young authors from a young senior editor22 cited
  • 2011Conceptual Debates and Empirical Evidence About the Peer Review Process for Scholarly Journals19 cited
  • 2010Ethics in 15 min per Week19 cited
  • 2022Reglas y consejos para ser un buen revisor por pares de manuscritos científicos13 cited
  • 2018Current Controversies Regarding Peer Review in Scholarly Journals13 cited
  • 2009Does Publication in Top-Tier Journals Affect Reviewer Behavior?12 cited
  • 2011Writing biomedical manuscripts part II: standard elements and common errors.10 cited
  • 2021How to convince an editor to accept your paper quickly9 cited
  • 2006Peer review and journal models9 cited

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