SZodixStudyAcademic Library
DashboardShelvesOpen accessMy libraryInboxNotesWriteLearnAlerts
More
Ask your libraryNotificationsQuick citeReview
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
0 references·16 citing·45 second hopsampled
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Peer review: a flawed process at the hear…Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review (2023)Fighting reviewer fatigue or …Responsible Conduct of Research (2022)Responsible Conduct of Resear…Initial evidence of research quality of registered reports compared with the standard publishing model (2021)Initial evidence of research …The limitations to our understanding of peer review (2020)The limitations to our unders…Pandemic publishing: Medical journals strongly speed up their publication process for COVID-19 (2020)Pandemic publishing: Medical …Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map (2020)Mapping research in student e…On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective (2019)On the value of preprints: An…The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future (2018)The evaluation of scholarship…What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)What is open peer review? A s…What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)What is open peer review? A s…A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)A multi-disciplinary perspect…Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2016)Impact of interventions to im…Emerging trends in peer review—a survey (2015)Emerging trends in peer revie…Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals (2012)Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged…Scientific peer review (2011)Scientific peer reviewA Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants (2010)A Reliability-Generalization …The Logic of Scientific Discovery. (1960)THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS (1963)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)A review of theory and practice in scientometrics (2015)Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references (2015)Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories (2019)The history of the peer-review process (2002)Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (2006)Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought (2013)AI-assisted peer review (2021)Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic (2021)The Scholarship of Engagement (1996)Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics (2015)Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science (2015)How significant are the public dimensions of faculty work in review, promotion and tenure documents? (2019)Assessing the effect of article processing charges on the geographic diversity of authors using Elsevier’s “Mirror Journal” system (2021)Dynamics of cumulative advantage and threats to equity in open science: a scoping review (2022)The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. (1968)Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (1978)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)An examination of teachers’ strategies to foster student engagement in blended learning in higher education (2021)Emergency remote teaching in higher education: mapping the first global online semester (2021)Student engagement in online learning in Latin American higher education during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A systematic review (2022)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Bias in peer review (2012)Guidance for Authors, Peer Reviewers, and Editors on Use of AI, Language Models, and Chatbots (2023)The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly (2025)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals (2013)How swamped preprint servers are blocking bad coronavirus research (2020)Pandemic publishing poses a new COVID-19 challenge (2020)How COVID-19 has fundamentally changed clinical research in global health (2021)False-Positive Psychology (2011)Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling (2012)Big little lies: a compendium and simulation of p -hacking strategies (2023)Positionality and Its Problems: Questioning the Value of Reflexivity Statements in Research (2023)The replication crisis has led to positive structural, procedural, and community changes (2023)Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system (1977)Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications (2012)Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science (2020)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)A social history of truth: civility and science in seventeenth-century England (1994)Harnessing the Power of ChatGPT for Automating Systematic Review Process: Methodology, Case Study, Limitations, and Future Directions (2023)The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts (2023)The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool (2024)
this work references cited by second hop· second hop is a sample of the most-cited connections

References

No references inside the corpus for this window.

Cited by

  • 2020Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map1,084 cited
  • 2011Scientific peer review563 cited
  • 2017What is open peer review? A systematic review453 cited
  • 2020The limitations to our understanding of peer review383 cited
  • 2018The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future343 cited
  • 2017A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review293 cited
  • 2021Initial evidence of research quality of registered reports compared with the standard publishing model278 cited
  • 2023Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review268 cited
  • 2020Pandemic publishing: Medical journals strongly speed up their publication process for COVID-19268 cited
  • 2017What is open peer review? A systematic review232 cited
  • 2010A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants232 cited
  • 2022Responsible Conduct of Research223 cited
  • 2016Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis218 cited

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

  • 2012Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals200 cited
  • 2015Emerging trends in peer review—a survey192 cited
  • 2019On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective184 cited