SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Critiquing the peer review process: Examining a potential dual role conflict.
3 references·0 citing·16 second hopsampled
Critiquing the peer review process: Examining a potential dual role conflict. (1992)Critiquing the peer review process: Exami…GENDER FACTORS IN REVIEWER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MANUSCRIPT PUBLICATION (1990)GENDER FACTORS IN REVIEWER RE…How blind is blind review? (1984)How blind is blind review?Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Peer-review practices of psyc…The scientific publication system in social science (1978)Manuscript characteristics influencing reviewers' decisions. (1980)Creativity research: Originality, utility, and integration (1988)The Review Process at PSPB: Correlates of Interreviewer Agreement and Manuscript Acceptance (1999)The cases for and against double-blind reviews (2019)Are women prejudiced against women? (1968)Evaluation of the performance of women as a function of their sex, achievement, and personal history. (1971)What's in an author's name? Differential evaluations of performance as a function of author's name (1985)To Name or Not to Name: The Effect of Changing Author Gender on Peer Review (2009)Uncovering Latent Biases in Text: Method and Application to Peer Review (2021)Statistical principles in experimental design. (1962)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)Toward an experimental ecology of human development. (1977)Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. (1995)Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Sustainability (2011)The Significance of Insecure and Disorganized Attachment for Children’s Internalizing Symptoms: A Meta-Analytic Study (2012)
this work references cited by second hop· second hop is a sample of the most-cited connections

References

  • 1982Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again1,071 cited
  • 1984How blind is blind review?125 cited
  • 1990GENDER FACTORS IN REVIEWER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MANUSCRIPT PUBLICATION85 cited

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.

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