SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Peer review: tips from field experts for junior reviewers
7 references·2 citing·37 second hop
Peer review: tips from field experts for junior reviewers (2015)Peer review: tips from field experts for …Optimal strategies to consider when peer reviewing a systematic review and meta-analysis (2015)Optimal strategies to conside…How to spot a statistical problem: advice for a non-statistical reviewer (2015)How to spot a statistical pro…A guide to performing a peer review of randomised controlled trials (2015)A guide to performing a peer …Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials (2014)Why training and specializati…Open access is tiring out peer reviewers (2014)Open access is tiring out pee…Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial (2012)Does mentoring new peer revie…Peer review in a changing world – preliminary findings of a global study (2010)Peer review in a changing wor…Investing in the Academic Writing: Training Future Reviewers and Sustaining Efficient and Quality Peer Review (2022)Investing in the Academic Wri…Open Science: A Review on Open Peer Review Literature (2018)Open Science: A Review on Ope…Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)Assessing abstracts of Iranian systematic reviews and meta-analysis indexed in WOS and Scopus using PRISMA (2017)Peer Review Guidance for Evaluating the Narrative Review: Lessons Applied From the Systematic Review (2021)STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT (1986)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)An instrument to assess the statistical intensity of medical research papers (2017)Ten Points for High-Quality Statistical Reporting and Data Presentation (2020)CODECHECK: an Open Science initiative for the independent execution of computations underlying research articles during peer review to improve reproducibility (2021)Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement (1996)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomized Trials (2010)Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer? (2014)Fortifying the Corrective Nature of Post-publication Peer Review: Identifying Weaknesses, Use of Journal Clubs, and Rewarding Conscientious Behavior (2016)Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant? (2019)Better Reporting of Harms in Randomized Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement (2004)Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement (2008)Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide (2014)Les thérapies digitales : quels freins pour leur prise en charge ? (2021)Complex Problem Solving: Principles and Mechanisms (1992)Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial (2004)The ethics of peer review in bioethics (2013)Complex Problem Solving (2014)Editorial: Peer Review and the Editorial Process - A Look Behind the Curtain (2014)A modest proposal to the peer review process: a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach in the assessment of scholarly communication (2021)Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review (2002)Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers (2012)Emerging trends in peer review—a survey (2015)Training students to become successful peer reviewers (2005)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)The limitations to our understanding of peer review (2020)Complex systems approach to scientific publication and peer-review system: development of an agent-based model calibrated with empirical journal data (2015)Review time in peer review: quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows (2016)Enhancing peer review efficiency: A mixed‐methods analysis of artificial intelligence ‐assisted reviewer selection across academic disciplines (2024)A New “Golden Rule” for Peer Review? (2014)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2012Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial89 cited
  • 2014Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials75 cited
  • 2014Open access is tiring out peer reviewers56 cited
  • 2015A guide to performing a peer review of randomised controlled trials28 cited
  • 2015How to spot a statistical problem: advice for a non-statistical reviewer23 cited
  • 2015Optimal strategies to consider when peer reviewing a systematic review and meta-analysis16 cited
  • 2010Peer review in a changing world – preliminary findings of a global study14 cited

Cited by

  • 2022Investing in the Academic Writing: Training Future Reviewers and Sustaining Efficient and Quality Peer Review10 cited
  • 2018Open Science: A Review on Open Peer Review Literature7 cited

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