SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
How to Survive Peer Review
0 references·16 citing·56 second hop
How to Survive Peer Review (2002)How to Survive Peer ReviewAn overview of the peer review process in biomedical sciences (2024)An overview of the peer revie…Developing doctoral students' / researchers’ understanding of the journal peer-review process (2021)Developing doctoral students'…Peer review practices by medical imaging journals (2020)Peer review practices by medi…Improving peer review: What reviewers can do (2017)Improving peer review: What r…Do peer review models affect clinicians’ trust in journals? A survey of junior doctors (2017)Do peer review models affect …Ethics of reviewing scientific publications (2016)Ethics of reviewing scientifi…A revisão por pares a partir da percepção dos editores (2016)A revisão por pares a partir …Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management (2015)Supplementary Report I to the…Scientific writing: Strategies and tools for students and advisors (2014)Scientific writing: Strategie…Reviewing the review process: Identifying sources of delay (2012)Reviewing the review process:…To publish or perish: How to review a manuscript (2011)To publish or perish: How to …To publish or perish: How to review a manuscript (2011)To publish or perish: How to …Reviewing scientific manuscripts (2011)Reviewing scientific manuscri…Conceptual Debates and Empirical Evidence About the Peer Review Process for Scholarly Journals (2011)Conceptual Debates and Empiri…Writing for academic journals, 2nd edition (2009)Writing for academic journals…Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research (2009)Quality of manuscript reviews…A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing (1981)Genre analysis : English in academic and research settings. By John M. Swales (Cambridge applied linguistics series.) Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Pp. 260. Cloth $34.50, paper $15.95. (1993)An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output (2005)A student guide to proofreading and writing in science (2017)Dos and don'ts of a successfully peer-reviewed publication: From A–Z (2020)Use of Technology-Based Tools in Ensuring Quality of Publishable Journal Articles (2020)What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal? (1998)Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors (2006)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)How Do Reviewers Affect the Final Outcome? Comparison of the Quality of Peer Review and Relative Acceptance Rates of Submitted Manuscripts (2013)Full Publication of Results Initially Presented in Abstracts (1994)The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. (1998)Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts (2007)Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals (2012)How to review journal manuscripts: A lesson learnt from the world's excellent reviewers (2014)Métodos de pesquisa mistos e revisões de literatura mistas: conceitos, construção e critérios de avaliação (2017)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)Mistake index as a surrogate of quality in scientific manuscripts (2015)Current Controversies Regarding Peer Review in Scholarly Journals (2018)Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory (1986)Scale Development : Theory and Applications (1991)Effects of Editorial Peer Review (2002)Narrative Review of Statistical Reporting Checklists, Mandatory Statistical Editing, and Rectifying Common Problems in the Reporting of Scientific Articles (2016)Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review (2019)What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis (2020)International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (1990)Opening up BMJ peer review (1999)Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? (2000)Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective (2017)Mapping pharmacy journals: A lexicographic analysis (2019)Time from submission to publication varied widely for biomedical journals: a systematic review (2021)Science in Action (1987)The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations (2000)External Control of Organizations: Resource Dependence Perspective (2011)Macular disease research in the United Kingdom 2011–2014: a bibliometric analysis of outputs, performance and coverage (2015)Evaluating cancer research impact: lessons and examples from existing reviews on approaches to research impact assessment (2021)Peer review in biomedical publication (1974)Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews (2016)Ethics in Peer Review of Academic Journal Articles as Perceived by Authors in the Educational Sciences (2018)CONSIDERACIONES ÉTICAS EN EL PROCESO DE UNA PUBLICACIÓN CIENTÍFICA (2019)Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (2021)Scientific sinkhole: estimating the cost of peer review based on survey data with snowball sampling (2023)The Psychology of Written Composition (1989)Writing Science: Literacy And Discursive Power (1993)The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity (2003)Writing successfully for theJournal of Geography in Higher Education (2012)Five writing development strategies to help academics flourish as writers (2016)Quiet writing: Retreat as pedagogy (2017)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomized Trials (2010)Improving peer review: What journals can do (2017)Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review (2023)Defining quality in peer review reports: a scoping review (2025)
this work references cited by second hop

References

No references inside the corpus for this window.

Cited by

  • 2012Reviewing the review process: Identifying sources of delay53 cited
  • 2014Scientific writing: Strategies and tools for students and advisors36 cited
  • 2009Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research36 cited
  • 2016Ethics of reviewing scientific publications33 cited
  • 2017Improving peer review: What reviewers can do29 cited
  • 2011To publish or perish: How to review a manuscript22 cited
  • 2011Conceptual Debates and Empirical Evidence About the Peer Review Process for Scholarly Journals19 cited
  • 2009Writing for academic journals, 2nd edition17 cited
  • 2015Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management16 cited
  • 2011Reviewing scientific manuscripts10 cited
  • 2021Developing doctoral students' / researchers’ understanding of the journal peer-review process10 cited
  • 2017Do peer review models affect clinicians’ trust in journals? A survey of junior doctors10 cited
  • 2024An overview of the peer review process in biomedical sciences9 cited
  • 2020Peer review practices by medical imaging journals8 cited
  • 2016

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

A revisão por pares a partir da percepção dos editores
7 cited
  • 2011To publish or perish: How to review a manuscript6 cited