SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Reviewing scientific manuscripts
6 references·1 citing·29 second hop
Reviewing scientific manuscripts (2011)Reviewing scientific manuscriptsThe Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review Quality (2007)The Relationship of Previous …Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)Editorial peer review for imp…Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors (2006)Differences in Review Quality…How to Review a Manuscript: A "Down-to-Earth" Approach (2004)How to Review a Manuscript: A…How to Survive Peer Review (2002)How to Survive Peer ReviewWhat Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal? (1998)What Makes a Good Reviewer an…How Do Reviewers Affect the Final Outcome? Comparison of the Quality of Peer Review and Relative Acceptance Rates of Submitted Manuscripts (2013)How Do Reviewers Affect the F…Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)A Comparison of Results of Meta-analyses of Randomized Control Trials and Recommendations of Clinical Experts (1992)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies (2009)PRISMA Statement (2010)What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. (2008)Predictive Validity Evidence for Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument Scores: Quality of Submissions to JGIM’s Medical Education Special Issue (2008)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality? (1998)Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports (1998)The manuscript reviewing process: Empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review (2009)An overview and analysis of journal operations, journal publication patterns, and journal impact in school psychology and related fields (2011)Writing for academia: Getting your research into print: AMEE Guide No. 74 (2012)Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions (2001)Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial (2004)Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals (2012)Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial (2012)Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews (2016)The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews (1993)Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language (1994)ACCEPTANCE RATE AND REASONS FOR REJECTION OF MANUSCRIPTS SUBMITTED TO VETERINARY RADIOLOGY & ULTRASOUND DURING 2012 (2014)The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial (1990)Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research (2009)Reviewing the review process: Identifying sources of delay (2012)Scientific writing: Strategies and tools for students and advisors (2014)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2007Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies316 cited
  • 1998What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal?268 cited
  • 2006Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors147 cited
  • 2007The Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review Quality139 cited
  • 2004How to Review a Manuscript: A "Down-to-Earth" Approach68 cited
  • 2002How to Survive Peer Review56 cited

Cited by

  • 2013How Do Reviewers Affect the Final Outcome? Comparison of the Quality of Peer Review and Relative Acceptance Rates of Submitted Manuscripts7 cited

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