Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

Closed versus open reviewing of journal manuscripts: how far do comments differ in language use?

16 references·16 citing·46 second hopsampled

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop· second hop is a sample of the most-cited connections

References

2009The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text Analysis Methods5,768 cited
2002Psychological Aspects of Natural Language Use: Our Words, Our Selves2,616 cited
1999Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference.1,960 cited
2015The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC20151,674 cited
2007Measuring Emotional Expression with the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count531 cited
2000Computer-assisted Text Analysis370 cited
2008Personality as manifest in word use: Correlations with self-report, acquaintance report, and behavior.292 cited
1998The invisible hand of peer review144 cited
2009Peer review process in medical research publications: Language and content comments107 cited
2008Convergent validity of bibliometric Google Scholar data in the field of chemistry—Citation counts for papers that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition or rejected but published elsewhere, using Google Scholar, Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts100 cited
2004Interactive journal concept for improved scientific publishing and quality assurance85 cited
2008Selecting manuscripts for a high‐impact journal through peer review: A citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere73 cited
2008The Effectiveness of the Peer Review Process: Inter‐Referee Agreement and Predictive Validity of Manuscript Refereeing at Angewandte Chemie

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

70 cited

2003Abstracts, introductions and discussions: How far do they differ in style?63 cited

2009The manuscript reviewing process: Empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review54 cited

1998The Medical Journal of Australia internet peer-review study52 cited

Cited by

2013On peer review in computer science: analysis of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvement45 cited
2020Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ42 cited
2012Citation gamesmanship: testing for evidence of ego bias in peer review41 cited
2016What We Still Don't Know About Peer Review38 cited
2017A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review38 cited
2020Large-scale language analysis of peer review reports35 cited
2022Can it be measured? A quantitative assessment of critiques of the entrepreneurship literature30 cited
2021An exploration of referees’ comments published in open peer review journals: The characteristics of review language and the association between review scrutiny and citations27 cited
2021An Overview of Post-Publication Peer Review27 cited
2018An overview of assessing the quality of peer review reports of scientific articles25 cited
2015Characteristics of a Megajournal: A Bibliometric Case Study25 cited
2021The influence of psychological language words contained in microblogs on dissemination behaviour in emergency situations – mediating effects of emotional responses19 cited
2025Open Science: A Review of Its Effectiveness and Implications for Service Research17 cited
2016Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of PeerJ Authors and Reviewers15 cited
2021Understanding authors' psychological reactions to peer reviews: a text mining approach12 cited
2021The Cultivation of Social Work Knowledge: Toward a More Robust System of Peer Review12 cited