Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

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

Are three heads better than two? How the number of reviewers and editor behavior affect the rejection rate

8 references·15 citing·48 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

1971Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system790 cited
2003Publishing as Prostitution? – Choosing Between One's Own Ideas and Academic Success296 cited
1988Scholarly Consensus and Journal Rejection Rates234 cited
1988Assessing precision in the manuscript review process: A little better than a dice roll97 cited
1990Neglected considerations in the analysis of agreement among journal referees82 cited
1993An intervention to improve the reliability of manuscript reviews for the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry52 cited
2009The luck of the referee draw: the effect of exchanging reviews51 cited
1993Drawbacks of peer review44 cited

Cited by

2010Rejection Rates for Journals Publishing in the Atmospheric Sciences36 cited
2011Quantifying the Volunteer Effort of Scientific Peer Reviewing28 cited
2014Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism28 cited
2016Editorial behaviors in peer review26 cited
2015Assessing the quality of feedback in the peer-review process23 cited
2011To publish or perish: How to review a manuscript22 cited

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

2011

Three empirical studies on the agreement of reviewers about the quality of software engineering experiments

22 cited

2011The blockbuster hypothesis: influencing the boundaries of knowledge18 cited

2018Authors and editors assort on gender and geography in high-rank ecological publications17 cited

2022How to Be a More Effective Reviewer14 cited

2013Fallout and miss in journal peer review12 cited

2013Multidimensional Journal Evaluation: Analyzing Scientific Periodicals beyond the Impact Factor11 cited

2009On Hochberg et al.’s “The tragedy of the reviewer commons”9 cited

2015Stop Drinking the Kool-Aid: The Academic Journal Review Process in the Social Sciences Is Broken, Let’s Fix It8 cited

2011To publish or perish: How to review a manuscript6 cited