Transparency showcases strength of peer review

Bernd Pulverer

64 citations0/0 files storedNature

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Publishing and Scholarly Communication Academic Writing and Publishing Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

Bernd Pulverer reflects on his experience at The EMBO Journal of publishing referees' reports, authors' responses and editors' comments alongside papers, as other EMBO publications adopt the same policy.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 64 citations exist upstream.

References

1999Opening up BMJ peer review

Cited by

2012Open Evaluation: A Vision for Entirely Transparent Post-Publication Peer Review and Rating for Science 2011Cooperation between Referees and Authors Increases Peer Review Accuracy 2011Social Simulation That 'Peers into Peer Review'2011The Hawthorne effect in journal peer review 2011Expert bias in peer review 2020Open versus blind peer review: is anonymity better than transparency?2022Incentives for Research Effort: An Evolutionary Model of Publication Markets with Double-Blind and Open Review 2023Biomedical publishing: Past historic, present continuous, future conditional

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.