SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Reduce, reuse, recycle scientific reviews
5 references·2 citing·26 second hop
Reduce, reuse, recycle scientific reviews (2012)Reduce, reuse, recycle scientific reviewsPubcreds: Fixing the Peer Review Process by “Privatizing” the Reviewer Commons (2010)Pubcreds: Fixing the Peer Rev…Negative changes in the scientific publication process in ecology: potential causes and consequences (2010)Negative changes in the scien…The Golden Rule of Reviewing (2009)The Golden Rule of ReviewingThe tragedy of the reviewer commons* (2008)The tragedy of the reviewer c…An Incentive Solution to the Peer Review Problem (2007)An Incentive Solution to the …Improving the reviewing process in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (2014)Improving the reviewing proce…With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: the Importance of Rejection, Power, and Editors in the Practice of Scientific Publishing (2013)With Great Power Comes Great …The Publishing Game: Getting More for Less (1981)The Assessment of Science: The Relative Merits of Post-Publication Review, the Impact Factor, and the Number of Citations (2013)Who's Afraid of Peer Review? (2013)“Publicationism” and scientists’ satisfaction depend on gender, career stage and the wider academic system (2017)Publication Overlap: Building an Academic House with Salami Shingles (2018)Fundamental problems in the peer‐review process and stakeholders' perceptions of potential suggestions for improvement (2024)How to write and publish a scientific paper (1990)Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate (1992)A Principal Component Analysis of 39 Scientific Impact Measures (2009)Multiparametric characterization of scientometric performance profiles assisted by neural networks: a study of Mexican higher education institutions (2016)Is positive publication bias really a bias, or an intentionally created discrimination toward negative results? (2019)A review of the literature on ethical issues related to scientific authorship (2020)Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors (2007)Collaboration and Productivity in Scientific Synthesis (2011)Flows of Research Manuscripts Among Scientific Journals Reveal Hidden Submission Patterns (2012)“Let the community decide”? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals (2017)Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers? (2017)The crisis of peer review: Part of the evolution of science (2024)Modeling peer review: an agent-based approach (2012)A Three-Decade History of the Duration of Peer Review (2013)Learning to review submissions to peer reviewed journals: how do they do it? (2013)Worsening file-drawer problem in the abstracts of natural, medical and social science databases (2010)The Case for Open Preprints in Biology (2013)Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal: An empirical analysis (2016)The validation of an active control intervention for Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) (2011)How Long Is Too Long in Contemporary Peer Review? Perspectives from Authors Publishing in Conservation Biology Journals (2015)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2007An Incentive Solution to the Peer Review Problem175 cited
  • 2010Pubcreds: Fixing the Peer Review Process by “Privatizing” the Reviewer Commons89 cited
  • 2008The tragedy of the reviewer commons*82 cited
  • 2009The Golden Rule of Reviewing60 cited
  • 2010Negative changes in the scientific publication process in ecology: potential causes and consequences52 cited

Cited by

  • 2014Improving the reviewing process in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology16 cited
  • 2013With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: the Importance of Rejection, Power, and Editors in the Practice of Scientific Publishing7 cited

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