SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Improving the reviewing process in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
16 references·3 citing·37 second hop
Improving the reviewing process in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (2014)Improving the reviewing process in Ecolog…Who's Afraid of Peer Review? (2013)Who's Afraid of Peer Review?The Assessment of Science: The Relative Merits of Post-Publication Review, the Impact Factor, and the Number of Citations (2013)The Assessment of Science: Th…Editorial rejects? Novelty, schnovelty! (2013)Editorial rejects? Novelty, s…A Three-Decade History of the Duration of Peer Review (2013)A Three-Decade History of the…Pubcreds: Fixing the Peer Review Process by “Privatizing” the Reviewer Commons (2010)Pubcreds: Fixing the Peer Rev…Negative changes in the scientific publication process in ecology: potential causes and consequences (2010)Negative changes in the scien…“Awkward wording. Rephrase”: linguistic injustice in ecological journals (2010)“Awkward wording. Rephrase”: …The Golden Rule of Reviewing (2009)The Golden Rule of ReviewingPeer review delay and selectivity in ecology journals (2009)Peer review delay and selecti…Exploring the Peer Review Process: What is it, Does it Work, and Can it Be Improved? (2009)Exploring the Peer Review Pro…Behind the shroud: a survey of editors in ecology and evolution (2009)Behind the shroud: a survey o…The tragedy of the reviewer commons* (2008)The tragedy of the reviewer c…An Incentive Solution to the Peer Review Problem (2007)An Incentive Solution to the …Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey (2006)Why do peer reviewers decline…The trouble with medical journals (2006)The trouble with medical jour…The Publishing Game: Getting More for Less (1981)The Publishing Game: Getting …Fundamental problems in the peer‐review process and stakeholders' perceptions of potential suggestions for improvement (2024)Fundamental problems in the p…“Publicationism” and scientists’ satisfaction depend on gender, career stage and the wider academic system (2017)“Publicationism” and scientis…Who are our reviewers and how do they review? The profile and work of Biological Conservation reviewers (2016)Who are our reviewers and how…Why do Some Countries Publish More Than Others? An International Comparison of Research Funding, English Proficiency and Publication Output in Highly Ranked General Medical Journals (2004)Is there science beyond English? (2007)The dominance of English in the international scientific periodical literature and the future of language use in science (2007)The value of virtual conferencing for ecology and conservation (2016)Ethnobiology Phase VI: Decolonizing Institutions, Projects, and Scholarship (2021)Overcoming Language Barriers in Academia: Machine Translation Tools and a Vision for a Multilingual Future (2022)Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research (1997)What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? (2004)A Principal Component Analysis of 39 Scientific Impact Measures (2009)Causes for the Persistence of Impact Factor Mania (2014)Altmetrics: an analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media (2016)Games academics play and their consequences: how authorship, h -index and journal impact factors are shaping the future of academia (2019)Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable (1994)Peer Review in Health Sciences (1999)Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial (2004)Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals (2012)Gender bias in scholarly peer review (2017)Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review (2018)“Let the community decide”? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals (2017)Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers? (2017)The crisis of peer review: Part of the evolution of science (2024)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation (1987)Evaluación de la actividad científica a través de indicadores bibliométricos (1999)We Have to Break Up (2009)Classical peer review: an empty gun (2010)Editorial: Review Articles, Systematic Reviews, Meta-Analysis, and the Updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 Guidelines (2021)Perspectives from early career researchers on the publication process in ecology - a response to Statzner & Resh (2010) (2011)Modeling peer review: an agent-based approach (2012)How to Make More Published Research True (2014)How open science helps researchers succeed (2016)The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review (2016)Worsening file-drawer problem in the abstracts of natural, medical and social science databases (2010)The Case for Open Preprints in Biology (2013)Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal: An empirical analysis (2016)The validation of an active control intervention for Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) (2011)How Long Is Too Long in Contemporary Peer Review? Perspectives from Authors Publishing in Conservation Biology Journals (2015)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2013Who's Afraid of Peer Review?934 cited
  • 1981The Publishing Game: Getting More for Less357 cited
  • 2013The Assessment of Science: The Relative Merits of Post-Publication Review, the Impact Factor, and the Number of Citations295 cited
  • 2006The trouble with medical journals215 cited
  • 2006Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey195 cited
  • 2007An Incentive Solution to the Peer Review Problem175 cited
  • 2010“Awkward wording. Rephrase”: linguistic injustice in ecological journals105 cited
  • 2010Pubcreds: Fixing the Peer Review Process by “Privatizing” the Reviewer Commons89 cited
  • 2008The tragedy of the reviewer commons*82 cited
  • 2009The Golden Rule of Reviewing60 cited
  • 2010Negative changes in the scientific publication process in ecology: potential causes and consequences52 cited
  • 2009Exploring the Peer Review Process: What is it, Does it Work, and Can it Be Improved?42 cited
  • 2009Peer review delay and selectivity in ecology journals40 cited
  • 2013A Three-Decade History of the Duration of Peer Review26 cited
  • 2013Editorial rejects? Novelty, schnovelty!23 cited

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

2009
Behind the shroud: a survey of editors in ecology and evolution
20 cited

Cited by

  • 2024Fundamental problems in the peer‐review process and stakeholders' perceptions of potential suggestions for improvement14 cited
  • 2017“Publicationism” and scientists’ satisfaction depend on gender, career stage and the wider academic system11 cited
  • 2016Who are our reviewers and how do they review? The profile and work of Biological Conservation reviewers11 cited