SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Basic philosophy and concepts underlying scientific peer review
16 references·3 citing·38 second hop
Basic philosophy and concepts underlying scientific peer review (1999)Basic philosophy and concepts underlying …The scandal of poor medical research (1994)The scandal of poor medical r…The Effects of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review (1994)The Effects of Blinding on Ac…What Do Peer Reviewers Do? (1990)What Do Peer Reviewers Do?What Can and Should Be Done to Reduce Publication Bias? (1990)What Can and Should Be Done t…The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation (1990)The Philosophical Basis of Pe…The Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for Its Occurrence (1990)The Existence of Publication …The Continued Use of Retracted, Invalid Scientific Literature (1990)The Continued Use of Retracte…The Communities of Scientists and Journal Peer Review (1990)The Communities of Scientists…Guarding the Guardians: A Conference on Editorial Peer Review (1986)Guarding the Guardians: A Con…Lessons from the Darsee Affair (1983)Lessons from the Darsee AffairPeer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Peer-review practices of psyc…Peer review: A philosophically faulty concept which is proving disastrous for science (1982)Peer review: A philosophicall…Betrayers of the Truth (1982)Betrayers of the TruthChance and Consensus in Peer Review (1981)Chance and Consensus in Peer …Should the Character ofPhysical Review Lettersbe Changed? (1979)Should the Character ofPhysic…The Ortega Hypothesis (1972)The Ortega HypothesisLotteries make science fairer (2020)Lotteries make science fairerA review of the review process: manuscript peer-review in biomedical research (2009)A review of the review proces…The expert witness. Neither Frye nor Daubert solved the problem: what can be done? (2001)The expert witness. Neither F…The Revolt of the Masses (1932)Little Science, Big Science (1963)Scientific Output and Recognition: A Study in the Operation of the Reward System in Science (1967)Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. (1997)Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, person, and process perspectives. (2003)What Causes a Management Article to be Cited—Article, Author, or Journal? (2007)A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine (1992)Testing and adjusting for publication bias (2001)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review (2016)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Journal Peer Review (1985)The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. (1990)The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation (1991)Let’s make peer review scientific (2016)Statistical principles in experimental design. (1962)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)Toward an experimental ecology of human development. (1977)Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. (1995)Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Sustainability (2011)The Significance of Insecure and Disorganized Attachment for Children’s Internalizing Symptoms: A Meta-Analytic Study (2012)Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods (2005)Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research (2005)A review of theory and practice in scientometrics (2015)Educational Research, Policymaking and Practice (2002)The Impact of Study Size on Meta-analyses: Examination of Underpowered Studies in Cochrane Reviews (2013)Guidelines for Reporting Trial Protocols and Completed Trials Modified Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Extenuating Circumstances (2021)Publication bias in meta-analysis its causes and consequences (2000)A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta‐analysis (2001)How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study (2003)Ethics in Educational Research (1999)Ethics in engineering practice and research (2012)Teaching the nature of science through scientific errors (2012)From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis (1983)Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research (1997)Cumulative Advantage as a Mechanism for Inequality: A Review of Theoretical and Empirical Developments (2006)Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes? (2006)The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles (2016)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1990The Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for Its Occurrence1,413 cited
  • 1982Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again1,071 cited
  • 1994The scandal of poor medical research897 cited
  • 1981Chance and Consensus in Peer Review623 cited
  • 1990The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation436 cited
  • 1972The Ortega Hypothesis387 cited
  • 1982Betrayers of the Truth239 cited
  • 1990The Continued Use of Retracted, Invalid Scientific Literature188 cited
  • 1994The Effects of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review164 cited
  • 1986Guarding the Guardians: A Conference on Editorial Peer Review154 cited
  • 1983Lessons from the Darsee Affair149 cited
  • 1990What Can and Should Be Done to Reduce Publication Bias?82 cited
  • 1990What Do Peer Reviewers Do?61 cited
  • 1982Peer review: A philosophically faulty concept which is proving disastrous for science51 cited
  • 1990The Communities of Scientists and Journal Peer Review44 cited
  • 1979Should the Character ofPhysical Review Lettersbe Changed?

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

40 cited

Cited by

  • 2001The expert witness. Neither Frye nor Daubert solved the problem: what can be done?31 cited
  • 2009A review of the review process: manuscript peer-review in biomedical research18 cited
  • 2020Lotteries make science fairer12 cited