SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Reviewing Peer Review
0 references·16 citing·54 second hop
Reviewing Peer Review (2008)Reviewing Peer ReviewExplosion of formulaic research articles, including inappropriate study designs and false discoveries, based on the NHANES US national health database (2025)Explosion of formulaic resear…The crisis of peer review: Part of the evolution of science (2024)The crisis of peer review: Pa…The risks associated with Artificial General Intelligence: A systematic review (2021)The risks associated with Art…Overburdening of peer reviewers: A multi‐stakeholder perspective on causes and effects (2021)Overburdening of peer reviewe…Publish or Perish mantra in the medical field: A systematic review of the reasons, consequences and remedies (2016)Publish or Perish mantra in t…Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal: An empirical analysis (2016)Attitudes of referees in a mu…Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study (2015)Personal attributes of author…Teleconference versus Face-to-Face Scientific Peer Review of Grant Application: Effects on Review Outcomes (2013)Teleconference versus Face-to…Saint Matthew strikes again: An agent-based model of peer review and the scientific community structure (2012)Saint Matthew strikes again: …Industrial methodology for process verification in research (IMPROVER): toward systems biology verification (2012)Industrial methodology for pr…Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study (2012)Does incentive provision incr…Peer Review in Academic Promotion and Publishing: Its Meaning, Locus, and Future (2011)Peer Review in Academic Promo…Nine Criteria for a Measure of Scientific Output (2011)Nine Criteria for a Measure o…De-centering 'spatial fix'--patterns of territorialization and regional technological dynamism of ICT hubs in China (2010)De-centering 'spatial fix'--p…LINKING BIG: THE CONTINUING PROMISE OF EVOLUTIONARY SYNTHESIS (2009)LINKING BIG: THE CONTINUING P…A content analysis of referees’ comments: how do comments on manuscripts rejected by a high-impact journal and later published in either a low- or high-impact journal differ? (2009)A content analysis of referee…The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. (1968)Nepotism and sexism in peer-review (1997)Peer review and competition in the Art Exhibition Game (2016)Hidden connections: Network effects on editorial decisions in four computer science journals (2017)The peer review game: an agent-based model of scientists facing resource constraints and institutional pressures (2018)Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention (1962)A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation (1999)z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments (2007)What Policies Increase Prosocial Behavior? An Experiment with Referees at the Journal of Public Economics (2014)The emergence of a field: a network analysis of research on peer review (2017)An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output (2005)The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor (2006)A Principal Component Analysis of 39 Scientific Impact Measures (2009)Open Evaluation: A Vision for Entirely Transparent Post-Publication Peer Review and Rating for Science (2012)Citizen Science, Education, and Learning: Challenges and Opportunities (2020)Research Trends in Green Product for Environment: A Bibliometric Perspective (2020)The Normative Structure of Science (1973)Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system (1977)How Professors Think (2009)Early career researchers and their authorship and peer review beliefs and practices: An international study (2019)Publish or perish: a systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates (2006)Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications (2012)Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? (2013)Female authorship of covid-19 research in manuscripts submitted to 11 biomedical journals: cross sectional study (2021)Preserving professional identities, behaviors, and values in digital professionalism using social networking sites; a systematic review (2021)The h-Index: An Indicator of Research and Publication Output (2023)Location, Competition, and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a Global Economy (2000)The New Imperialism (2003)Placing Technological Innovation in Globalising China (2011)Subcontracting and Supplier Innovativeness in a Developing Economy: Evidence from China's Information and Communication Technology Industry (2011)INNOVATION IN CHINA (2014)A Brief History of Neoliberalism (2020)A Practical Guide to Focus-Group Research (2006)Achieving Saturation in Thematic Analysis: Development and Refinement of a Codebook (2014)Global patterns in the publishing of academic knowledge: Global North, global South (2016)Innovating peer review, reconfiguring scholarly communication: an analytical overview of ongoing peer review innovation activities (2022)Protection of the human gene research literature from contract cheating organizations known as research paper mills (2022)The Delphi Method? (1997)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)A Multi-Industry Analysis of the Future Use of AI Chatbots (2022)Navigating artificial general intelligence development: societal, technological, ethical, and brain-inspired pathways (2025)The AI risk repository: A meta-review, database, and taxonomy of risks from artificial intelligence (2026)THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS (1963)The Antecedents of Deinstitutionalization (1992)Academic Capitalism and the New Economy (2009)Fundamental problems in the peer‐review process and stakeholders' perceptions of potential suggestions for improvement (2024)HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known (1998)A manifesto for reproducible science (2017)The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science (2021)Journal of Global Health’s Guidelines for Reporting Analyses of Big Data Repositories Open to the Public (GRABDROP): preventing ‘paper mills’, duplicate publications, misuse of statistical inference, and inappropriate use of artificial intelligence (2025)More science friction for less science fiction (2025)Quantifying new threats to health and biomedical literature integrity from rapidly scaled publications and problematic research (2026)
this work references cited by second hop

References

No references inside the corpus for this window.

Cited by

  • 2021The risks associated with Artificial General Intelligence: A systematic review206 cited
  • 2012Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study102 cited
  • 2011Nine Criteria for a Measure of Scientific Output97 cited
  • 2010De-centering 'spatial fix'--patterns of territorialization and regional technological dynamism of ICT hubs in China96 cited
  • 2025Explosion of formulaic research articles, including inappropriate study designs and false discoveries, based on the NHANES US national health database95 cited
  • 2016Publish or Perish mantra in the medical field: A systematic review of the reasons, consequences and remedies94 cited
  • 2021Overburdening of peer reviewers: A multi‐stakeholder perspective on causes and effects73 cited
  • 2024The crisis of peer review: Part of the evolution of science70 cited
  • 2012Saint Matthew strikes again: An agent-based model of peer review and the scientific community structure62 cited
  • 2016Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal: An empirical analysis60 cited
  • 2009LINKING BIG: THE CONTINUING PROMISE OF EVOLUTIONARY SYNTHESIS56 cited
  • 2012Industrial methodology for process verification in research (IMPROVER): toward systems biology verification54 cited
  • 2015Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study

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

53 cited
  • 2009A content analysis of referees’ comments: how do comments on manuscripts rejected by a high-impact journal and later published in either a low- or high-impact journal differ?47 cited
  • 2013Teleconference versus Face-to-Face Scientific Peer Review of Grant Application: Effects on Review Outcomes38 cited
  • 2011Peer Review in Academic Promotion and Publishing: Its Meaning, Locus, and Future37 cited