SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal
6 references·16 citing·38 second hop
Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal (2004)Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review…Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial (2004)Effects of training on qualit…Review criteria for research manuscripts. (2001)Review criteria for research …Reasons Reviewers Reject and Accept Manuscripts (2001)Reasons Reviewers Reject and …Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Effect of open peer review on…What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal? (1998)What Makes a Good Reviewer an…Peer review: reform or revolution? (1997)Peer review: reform or revolu…Feedback practices in journal peer-review: a systematic literature review (2023)Feedback practices in journal…Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers’ confidential comments to editors (2021)Transparency in peer review: …Critical essay: Blinding faith – Paradoxes and pathologies of opacity in peer review (2021)Critical essay: Blinding fait…Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing (2020)Open up: a survey on open and…Open Science Saves Lives: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic (2020)Open Science Saves Lives: Les…Editors’ Perspectives on Enhancing Manuscript Quality and Editorial Decisions Through Peer Review and Reviewer Development (2017)Editors’ Perspectives on Enha…Are peer-review activities related to reviewer bibliometric performance? A scientometric analysis of Publons (2017)Are peer-review activities re…A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)A multi-disciplinary perspect…Expanding Group Peer Review: A Proposal for Medical Education Scholarship (2016)Expanding Group Peer Review: …O processo de revisão por pares: uma revisão integrativa de literatura (2012)O processo de revisão por par…Marketing Academics' Perceptions of the Peer Review Process (2012)Marketing Academics' Percepti…Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial (2012)Does mentoring new peer revie…Conceptual Debates and Empirical Evidence About the Peer Review Process for Scholarly Journals (2011)Conceptual Debates and Empiri…Peer Reviewer Training and Editor Support: Results From an International Survey of Nursing Peer Reviewers (2009)Peer Reviewer Training and Ed…Experience, Time Investment, and Motivators of Nursing Journal Peer Reviewers (2008)Experience, Time Investment, …To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer (2006)To blind or not to blind? Wha…Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)Authors’ and Editors’ Perspectives on Peer Review Quality in Three Scholarly Nursing Journals (2010)Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals (2012)The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial (1990)Manuscript peer review: a helpful checklist for students and novice referees. (2000)Measuring the social impact of research (2001)Inter-rater agreement in the scoring of abstracts submitted to a primary care research conference (2002)The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses (1965)Association Between Funding and Quality of Published Medical Education Research (2007)Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: a systematic review (2007)Limited by our limitations (2019)Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Peer Review in Health Sciences (1999)How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on. (2006)What is open peer review? A systematic 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)Subjective Performance and the Value of Blind Evaluation (2011)Enabling or Limiting Cognitive Flexibility? Evidence of Demand for Moral Commitment (2023)Complex Problem Solving: Principles and Mechanisms (1992)The ethics of peer review in bioethics (2013)Complex Problem Solving (2014)Editorial: Peer Review and the Editorial Process - A Look Behind the Curtain (2014)A modest proposal to the peer review process: a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach in the assessment of scholarly communication (2021)Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies (2007)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)Open Science por defecto. La nueva normalidad para la investigación (2021)The Science of Open (Communication) Science: Toward an Evidence-Driven Understanding of Quality Criteria in Communication Research (2021)The societal impact of Open Science: a scoping review (2024)How to Review a Manuscript: A "Down-to-Earth" Approach (2004)Study design, originality and overall consistency influence acceptance or rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Journal (2004)A Rubric to Assess Critical Literature Evaluation Skills (2007)How open science helps researchers succeed (2016)The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review (2016)Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature (2017)Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial (2000)What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? (2008)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1999Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial415 cited
  • 2004Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial268 cited
  • 1998What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal?266 cited
  • 2001Reasons Reviewers Reject and Accept Manuscripts235 cited
  • 1997Peer review: reform or revolution?113 cited
  • 2001Review criteria for research manuscripts.79 cited

Cited by

  • 2012Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial89 cited
  • 2006To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer64 cited
  • 2009Peer Reviewer Training and Editor Support: Results From an International Survey of Nursing Peer Reviewers59 cited
  • 2020Open Science Saves Lives: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic57 cited
  • 2017Are peer-review activities related to reviewer bibliometric performance? A scientometric analysis of Publons55 cited
  • 2008Experience, Time Investment, and Motivators of Nursing Journal Peer Reviewers39 cited
  • 2017A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review38 cited
  • 2020Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing33 cited

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

  • 2023Feedback practices in journal peer-review: a systematic literature review22 cited
  • 2016Expanding Group Peer Review: A Proposal for Medical Education Scholarship22 cited
  • 2021Critical essay: Blinding faith – Paradoxes and pathologies of opacity in peer review21 cited
  • 2021Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers’ confidential comments to editors21 cited
  • 2012Marketing Academics' Perceptions of the Peer Review Process21 cited
  • 2012O processo de revisão por pares: uma revisão integrativa de literatura21 cited
  • 2017Editors’ Perspectives on Enhancing Manuscript Quality and Editorial Decisions Through Peer Review and Reviewer Development21 cited
  • 2011Conceptual Debates and Empirical Evidence About the Peer Review Process for Scholarly Journals19 cited