SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Free for Service: The Inadequate Incentives for Quality Peer Review
6 references·3 citing·42 second hop
Free for Service: The Inadequate Incentives for Quality Peer Review (2013)Free for Service: The Inadequate Incentiv…SPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defining Standard Protocol Items for Clinical Trials (2013)SPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defini…Reviewer index: A new proposal of rewarding the reviewer (2013)Reviewer index: A new proposa…Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study (2012)Does incentive provision incr…The ups and downs of peer review (2007)The ups and downs of peer rev…Peer review, unmasked (2002)Peer review, unmaskedEffects of Editorial Peer Review (2002)Effects of Editorial Peer Rev…Where are the carrots? A proposal to start crediting peer reviewers for their contribution to science (2023)Where are the carrots? A prop…Is peer review duration shorter for attractive manuscripts? (2023)Is peer review duration short…Retaining and Rewarding Journal Peer Reviewers (2018)Retaining and Rewarding Journ…Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention (1962)A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation (1999)z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments (2007)What Policies Increase Prosocial Behavior? An Experiment with Referees at the Journal of Public Economics (2014)The emergence of a field: a network analysis of research on peer review (2017)The crisis of peer review: Part of the evolution of science (2024)Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism (1990)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: a systematic review (2007)The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals (2019)Poor-quality medical research: what can journals do? (2002)Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey (2006)An Incentive Solution to the Peer Review Problem (2007)Editorial Misconduct—Definition, Cases, and Causes (2014)The missing metric: quantifying contributions of reviewers (2015)The F3-index. Valuing reviewers for scholarly journals (2018)The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1991)Requisitos uniformes para manuscritos submetidos a periódicos biomédicos: escrevendo e editando para publicações biomédicas (2006)Scientific Utopia: I. Opening Scientific Communication (2012)How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications (2014)The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review (2016)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomized Trials (2010)Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Randomized Trials (2013)SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials (2013)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)Peers under pressure (2001)Publication rejection among ecologists (2003)Publication and Rejection among Successful Ecologists (2004)Complex systems approach to scientific publication and peer-review system: development of an agent-based model calibrated with empirical journal data (2015)Peer review as a business transaction (2015)Rewarding Peer Reviewers - Maintaining the Integrity of Science Communication (2015)Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement (2017)Computational Social Science (2009)Active vs. Passive Decisions and Crowd-Out in Retirement Savings Accounts: Evidence from Denmark * (2014)Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature (2016)‘Improving ratings’: audit in the British University system (1997)Rewarding reviewers – sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained (2016)Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science (2020)A harm reduction approach to improving peer review by acknowledging its imperfections (2024)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2013SPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defining Standard Protocol Items for Clinical Trials7,356 cited
  • 2002Effects of Editorial Peer Review347 cited
  • 2007The ups and downs of peer review296 cited
  • 2012Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study102 cited
  • 2002Peer review, unmasked40 cited
  • 2013Reviewer index: A new proposal of rewarding the reviewer29 cited

Cited by

  • 2023Is peer review duration shorter for attractive manuscripts?10 cited
  • 2023Where are the carrots? A proposal to start crediting peer reviewers for their contribution to science9 cited
  • 2018Retaining and Rewarding Journal Peer Reviewers9 cited

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