SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Conducting Proper Peer Review for a Journal
15 references·1 citing·48 second hop
Conducting Proper Peer Review for a Journal (2014)Conducting Proper Peer Review for a Journ…Fraud and Deceit in Medical Research (2022)Fraud and Deceit in Medical R…Peer Review Guidance: How Do You Write a Good Review? (2013)Peer Review Guidance: How Do …How to peer review a scientific or scholarly article (2012)How to peer review a scientif…Reviewing Manuscripts for Peer-Review Journals: A Primer for Novice and Seasoned Reviewers (2011)Reviewing Manuscripts for Pee…QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (2011)QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for …CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomized Trials (2010)CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updat…Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for…What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"? (2007)What is the future of peer re…The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)The Strengthening the Reporti…The ACS Style Guide (2006)The ACS Style GuidePeer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Peer review: a flawed process…The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration (2003)The STARD statement for repor…The history of the peer-review process (2002)The history of the peer-revie…What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal? (1998)What Makes a Good Reviewer an…Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism (1990)Peer Review in 18th-Century S…TO THE ASSESSMENT OF TECHNICAL LEVEL COMPLEX TECHNICAL SYSTEMS TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE WHOLE LIFE CYCLE (2016)TO THE ASSESSMENT OF TECHNICA…The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review (1990)Authorship (1998)Bias in peer review (2012)Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. (2014)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Nepotism and sexism in peer-review (1997)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? (2019)Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map (2020)Information, Communication, Knowledge (1969)A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine (1992)Scientific peer review (2011)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)SPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defining Standard Protocol Items for Clinical Trials (2013)SPIRIT 2013 Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. (2015)CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials (2016)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration (2007)CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide (2014)The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis (1999)The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews (2003)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016)PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018)RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019)Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers. (1951)Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers (1975)Peer review in health sciences (2002)Reviewing the review process: Identifying sources of delay (2012)Rewarding Peer Reviewers - Maintaining the Integrity of Science Communication (2015)Peer review and the publication process (2016)Developing Optimal Search Strategies for Detecting Clinically Sound Studies in MEDLINE (1994)Systematic Reviews: Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews (1994)Empirical Evidence of Design-Related Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Tests (1999)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial (1990)Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language (1994)Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial (2004)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement84,364 cited
  • 2007The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies17,960 cited
  • 2011QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies14,549 cited
  • 2010CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomized Trials3,833 cited
  • 2003The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration1,214 cited
  • 2006Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals814 cited
  • 2002The history of the peer-review process477 cited
  • 1990Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism365 cited
  • 1998What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal?268 cited
  • 2011Reviewing Manuscripts for Peer-Review Journals: A Primer for Novice and Seasoned Reviewers125 cited
  • 2007What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"?62 cited
  • 2006The ACS Style Guide44 cited
  • 2013Peer Review Guidance: How Do You Write a Good Review?28 cited
  • 2022

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

Fraud and Deceit in Medical Research
21 cited
  • 2012How to peer review a scientific or scholarly article12 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2016TO THE ASSESSMENT OF TECHNICAL LEVEL COMPLEX TECHNICAL SYSTEMS TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE WHOLE LIFE CYCLE24 cited