Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

The Academic Review Process: How Can We Make it More Efficient?

10 references·9 citing·41 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

2000The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process514 cited
1994How Are the Mighty Fallen: Rejected Classic Articles by Leading Economists389 cited
2002Evolving Standards for Academic Publishing: A q‐r Theory252 cited
1994Facts and Myths about Refereeing147 cited
1990Is There Value-Added from the Review Process in Economics?: Preliminary Evidence from Authors127 cited
1998Why referees are not paid (enough)69 cited
2000Evolving Standards for Academic Publishing: A Q-R Theory68 cited
2004Rejections and the importance of first response times48 cited
2005The Review Process in Economics: Is It Too Fast?46 cited
1994Does the "Blindness" of Peer Review Influence Manuscript Selection Efficiency?42 cited

Cited by

2021Competition for priority harms the reliability of science, but reforms can help37 cited
2007Negatively correlated author seniority and the number of acknowledged people: Name-recognition as a signal of scientific merit?36 cited
2008Successful Authors and Effective Reviewers34 cited
2013Submission Fees and Response Times in Academic Publishing33 cited
2006Evolution of social norms with heterogeneous preferences: A general model and an application to the academic review process

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

33 cited

2010Does Paying Referees Expedite Reviews?: Results of a Natural Experiment31 cited

2007PROLIFERATION OF ACADEMIC JOURNALS: EFFECTS ON RESEARCH QUANTITY AND QUALITY31 cited

2007The Editor's Secrets17 cited

2005The Review Process in Economics: Is It Too Fast?12 cited