SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Meaningful peer review is integral to quality science and should provide benefits to the authors and reviewers alike
4 references·0 citing·18 second hop
Meaningful peer review is integral to quality science and should provide benefits to the authors and reviewers alike (2013)Meaningful peer review is integral to qua…Interactive Open Access Publishing and Peer Review: The Effectiveness and Perspectives of Transparency and Self-Regulation in Scientific Communication and Evaluation (2010)Interactive Open Access Publi…The Role of Peer Review for Scholarly Journals in the Information Age (2007)The Role of Peer Review for S…On the value of being a journal reviewer (2005)On the value of being a journ…Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial (2000)Open peer review: A randomise…Interactive journal concept for improved scientific publishing and quality assurance (2004)Interactive open access publishing and collaborative peer review for improved scientific communication and quality assurance (2008)From black box to white box at open access journals: predictive validity of manuscript reviewing and editorial decisions at Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (2010)Interactive open access publishing and public peer review: The effectiveness of transparency and self-regulation in scientific quality assurance (2010)Aggregating post-publication peer reviews and ratings (2012)In public peer review of submitted manuscripts, how do reviewer comments differ from comments written by interested members of the scientific community? A content analysis of comments written for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (2012)Manuscript peer review: a helpful checklist for students and novice referees. (2000)HOW TO REVIEW A PAPER (2003)Manuscript review continuing medical education: a retrospective investigation of the learning outcomes from this peer reviewer benefit (2020)Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports (1998)What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal? (1998)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Testing and adjusting for publication bias (2001)How open science helps researchers succeed (2016)A manifesto for reproducible science (2017)Bibliometric Analysis of Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (Dentistry Section; 2007-2014) (2015)How significant is corporate social responsibility to business research? (2020)A scientometric analysis of the housing affordability literature (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2000Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial261 cited
  • 2007The Role of Peer Review for Scholarly Journals in the Information Age66 cited
  • 2010Interactive Open Access Publishing and Peer Review: The Effectiveness and Perspectives of Transparency and Self-Regulation in Scientific Communication and Evaluation26 cited
  • 2005On the value of being a journal reviewer16 cited

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.

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