SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
The reviewer is always right: peer review of research in Medical Education
1 references·9 citing·41 second hop
The reviewer is always right: peer review of research in Medical Education (2008)The reviewer is always right: peer review…What makes a good reviewer of manuscripts? (1998)What makes a good reviewer of…Altruism as enlightened self‐interest: How helping others through peer review helps you (2021)Altruism as enlightened self‐…Writing Author Response Letters That Get Editors to “Yes” (2019)Writing Author Response Lette…“This Manuscript Was a Complete Waste of Time”: Reviewer Etiquette Matters (2019)“This Manuscript Was a Comple…Scholarship in Emergency Medicine: A Primer for Junior Academics Part I: Writing and Publishing (2018)Scholarship in Emergency Medi…Academic Primer Series: Key Papers About Peer Review (2017)Academic Primer Series: Key P…Group Peer Review: The Breakfast of Champions (2016)Group Peer Review: The Breakf…Twelve tips for getting your manuscript published (2015)Twelve tips for getting your …Titles, Abstracts and Authors (2012)Titles, Abstracts and AuthorsLegitimizing basic research by evaluating quality (2010)Legitimizing basic research b…What is this thing called science? (1999)How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers (2009)Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence (2010)Structural Organisation of Research Article Titles: A Comparative Study of Titles of Business, Gynaecology and Law (2019)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)Twelve tips on writing abstracts and titles: How to get people to use and cite your work (2016)Facilitators and Barriers for Young Medical Doctors Writing Their First Manuscript for Publication (2021)Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers (2024)Qualitative research in nursing - Advancing the humanistic imperative (1996)Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness (2003)Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty (2003)The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial (1990)Peer review: reform or revolution? (1997)"Thank you for your critical comments and helpful suggestions": compliance and conflict in authors' replies to referees' comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers (2001)An 'important contribution' or 'tiresome reading'? A study of evaluation in peer reviews of journal article submissions (2004)Focal randomisation: an optimal mechanism for the evaluation of R&D projects (2007)The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews (1993)Communities of Practice (1998)Review criteria for research manuscripts. (2001)Advice for authors from the editors of Perspectives on Medical Education: Getting your research published (2018)The benefits to climate science of including early-career scientists as reviewers (2020)Reasons Reviewers Reject and Accept Manuscripts (2001)Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial (2010)Curated Collections for Educators: Five Key Papers on Evaluating Digital Scholarship (2018)Open Science: A Review on Open Peer Review Literature (2018)Reviewer selection biases editorial decisions on manuscripts (2018)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)The 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)Writing Education Studies for Publication (2012)Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. (2014)Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community – Results from an international study (2008)The Silent Majority: Manuscript Rejection and Its Impact on Scholars (2011)The Social and Psychological Costs of Peer Review (2015)Editorial Decision Making for Academic Medicine, 2021 (2020)Maintaining Standards or Gatekeeping the Academy? Reflections of Peer Review Experiences by Racially and Culturally Minoritized Scholars in Australia (2025)The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (2006)The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (2018)Discovering the Benefits of Group Peer Review of Submitted Manuscripts (2019)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1998What makes a good reviewer of manuscripts?61 cited

Cited by

  • 2015Twelve tips for getting your manuscript published38 cited
  • 2017Academic Primer Series: Key Papers About Peer Review24 cited
  • 2016Group Peer Review: The Breakfast of Champions22 cited
  • 2012Titles, Abstracts and Authors13 cited
  • 2018Scholarship in Emergency Medicine: A Primer for Junior Academics Part I: Writing and Publishing12 cited
  • 2019“This Manuscript Was a Complete Waste of Time”: Reviewer Etiquette Matters10 cited
  • 2019Writing Author Response Letters That Get Editors to “Yes”9 cited
  • 2021Altruism as enlightened self‐interest: How helping others through peer review helps you9 cited
  • 2010Legitimizing basic research by evaluating quality8 cited

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