SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Peer review at the beginning of the 21st century
12 references·1 citing·35 second hop
Peer review at the beginning of the 21st century (2014)Peer review at the beginning of the 21st …The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing (2015)The STM Report: An overview o…The changing face of peer review (2014)The changing face of peer rev…Peer review in a rapidly evolving publishing landscape (2012)Peer review in a rapidly evol…Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers (2012)Peer review in a changing wor…Academic and Professional Publishing (2012)Academic and Professional Pub…End the wasteful tyranny of reviewer experiments (2011)End the wasteful tyranny of r…Committee on publication ethics (2010)Committee on publication ethi…Classical peer review: an empty gun (2010)Classical peer review: an emp…Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice (2008)Peer Review and Manuscript Ma…Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals (2007)Peer Review and Manuscript Ma…Sense about science (2006)Sense about sciencePeer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Peer review: a flawed process…Addressing Reproducibility: Peer Review, Impact Factors, Checklists, Guidelines, and Reproducibility Initiatives (2017)Addressing Reproducibility: P…Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions (2021)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers (2013)The value of peer review (2014)Ten considerations for open peer review (2018)Scientists behaving badly (2005)The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor (2006)How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data (2009)Learning to review submissions to peer reviewed journals: how do they do it? (2013)Peer Review, Root Canals, and Other Amazing Life Events (2015)Dimensions of trust in scholarly communication: Problematizing peer review in the aftermath of John Bohannon's “Sting” in science (2016)Technical assessment and evaluation of environmental models and software: Letter to the Editor (2010)Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals (2012)Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study (2014)Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: results of an international survey (2009)Self-Plagiarism or Appropriate Textual Re-use? (2009)Plagiarism in Scientific Publishing (2012)Scientific peer review (2011)Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map (2020)Cooperation between Referees and Authors Increases Peer Review Accuracy (2011)Bite-Size Science and Its Undesired Side Effects (2012)Publication efficiency among the higher impact factor nursing journals in 2009: A retrospective analysis (2012)Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience (2010)Aggregating post-publication peer reviews and ratings (2012)The author–reviewer game (2020)The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era (2015)Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective (2017)Over-optimization of academic publishing metrics: observing Goodhart's Law in action (2019)Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? (2011)Exploratory Research (2020)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2006Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals794 cited
  • 2015The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing396 cited
  • 2012Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers393 cited
  • 2010Committee on publication ethics201 cited
  • 2007Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals184 cited
  • 2010Classical peer review: an empty gun134 cited
  • 2008Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice119 cited
  • 2011End the wasteful tyranny of reviewer experiments50 cited
  • 2006Sense about science30 cited
  • 2012Peer review in a rapidly evolving publishing landscape24 cited
  • 2012Academic and Professional Publishing23 cited
  • 2014The changing face of peer review20 cited

Cited by

  • 2017Addressing Reproducibility: Peer Review, Impact Factors, Checklists, Guidelines, and Reproducibility Initiatives11 cited

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