SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
How Long is the Peer Review Process for Journal Manuscripts? A Case Study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition
3 references·4 citing·35 second hop
How Long is the Peer Review Process for Journal Manuscripts? A Case Study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition (2010)How Long is the Peer Review Process for J…The manuscript reviewing process: Empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review (2009)The manuscript reviewing proc…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…Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice (2008)Peer Review and Manuscript Ma…Peering into peer review: Good quality reviews of research articles require neither writing too much nor taking too long (2018)Peering into peer review: Goo…The effect of the “very important paper” (VIP) designation in Angewandte Chemie International Edition on citation impact: A propensity score matching analysis (2016)The effect of the “very impor…Characteristics of a Megajournal: A Bibliometric Case Study (2015)Characteristics of a Megajour…Review of the Ethics and Etiquettes of Time Management of Manuscript Peer Review (2014)Review of the Ethics and Etiq…The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. (1982)The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science (1983)Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research (2005)The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science (2010)Closed versus open reviewing of journal manuscripts: how far do comments differ in language use? (2011)The conceptual foundation of environmental decision support (2015)Public Knowledge: An essay Concerning the Social Dimension of Science (1969)Editorial peer review : its strengths and weaknesses (2001)What Causes a Management Article to be Cited—Article, Author, or Journal? (2007)Citation gamesmanship: testing for evidence of ego bias in peer review (2012)What We Still Don't Know About Peer Review (2016)Assessing peer review by gauging the fate of rejected manuscripts: the case of the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation (2017)Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. (1971)A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. (1999)Heuristic Decision Making (2010)Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers? (2017)Ethics in Peer Review of Academic Journal Articles as Perceived by Authors in the Educational Sciences (2018)Accelerated Peer Review and Paper Processing Models in Academic Publishing (2022)The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. (1968)Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science (2011)Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science (2013)The troubles of high-profile open access megajournals (2019)Open-access Mega-journals in Health and Life Sciences: What Every Researcher needs to know about this Publishing Model (2022)The journal of financial economics (1993)Journal impact measures in bibliometric research (2002)Bias in peer review (2012)Sampling issues in bibliometric analysis: Response to discussants (2016)Do cover papers get better citations and usage counts? An analysis of 42 journals in cell biology (2022)What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal? (1998)Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics: a Publisher's Perspective (2006)The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals (2013)Is peer review duration shorter for attractive manuscripts? (2023)Citation speed as a measure to predict the attention an article receives: An investigation of the validity of editorial decisions at Angewandte Chemie International Edition (2009)A label for peer‐reviewed books (2012)Peer review in an Era of Evaluation (2022)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2008Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice57 cited
  • 2009The manuscript reviewing process: Empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review54 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

Cited by

  • 2015Characteristics of a Megajournal: A Bibliometric Case Study25 cited
  • 2014Review of the Ethics and Etiquettes of Time Management of Manuscript Peer Review19 cited
  • 2016The effect of the “very important paper” (VIP) designation in Angewandte Chemie International Edition on citation impact: A propensity score matching analysis18 cited
  • 2018Peering into peer review: Good quality reviews of research articles require neither writing too much nor taking too long13 cited

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