SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
A Systematic Review of Peer Review for Scientific Manuscripts
16 references·3 citing·37 second hop
A Systematic Review of Peer Review for Scientific Manuscripts (2012)A Systematic Review of Peer Review for Sc…Is open peer review the fairest system? Yes (2010)Is open peer review the faire…Is open peer review the fairest system? No (2010)Is open peer review the faire…Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial (2010)Effect on peer review of tell…Classical peer review: an empty gun (2010)Classical peer review: an emp…Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: results of an international survey (2009)Science journal editors’ view…Ethical authorship and publishing (2008)Ethical authorship and publis…Does double-blind review benefit female authors? (2008)Does double-blind review bene…Content and communication: How can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing? (2008)Content and communication: Ho…Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors (2007)Double-blind review favours i…Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics: a Publisher's Perspective (2006)Best Practice Guidelines on P…Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review (2002)Measuring the Quality of Edit…Effects of Editorial Peer Review (2002)Effects of Editorial Peer Rev…Author Perception of Peer Review (2002)Author Perception of Peer Rev…Freedom and Responsibility in Medical Publication (1998)Freedom and Responsibility in…Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language (1994)Multiple blinded reviews of t…Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism (1990)Peer Review in 18th-Century S…Research integrity in randomized clinical trials: A scoping umbrella review (2023)Research integrity in randomi…Process Evaluations of Positive Youth Development Programmes for Disadvantaged Young People: A Systematic Review (2022)Process Evaluations of Positi…How to review journal manuscripts: A lesson learnt from the world's excellent reviewers (2014)How to review journal manuscr…Nepotism and sexism in peer-review (1997)US and Non-US Submissions (1998)Testing and adjusting for publication bias (2001)Implicit Bias, Stereotype Threat, and Women in Philosophy (2013)Gender, Race and Parenthood Impact Academic Productivity During the COVID-19 Pandemic: From Survey to Action (2021)Responsible Conduct of Research (2022)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)A Descriptive and Historical Review of Bibliometrics with Applications to Medical Sciences (2015)Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2016)Who Reviews the Reviewers? Feasibility of Using a Fictitious Manuscript to Evaluate Peer Reviewer Performance (1998)Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for Assessing Peer Reviews of Manuscripts (1999)How I Review an Original Scientific Article (2002)The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature (2010)Flows of Research Manuscripts Among Scientific Journals Reveal Hidden Submission Patterns (2012)Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study (1997)Scientists behaving badly (2005)Requisitos uniformes para manuscritos submetidos a periódicos biomédicos: escrevendo e editando para publicações biomédicas (2006)Authorship and Responsibility in Health Sciences Research: A Review of Procedures for Fairly Allocating Authorship in Multi-Author Studies (2011)Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-analysis of Surveys (2014)The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles (2016)Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Peer review in health sciences (2002)Emerging trends in peer review—a survey (2015)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Ethics in the authorship and publishing of scientific articles (2010)Statement on authorship and publishing ethics in the international journal of cardiology (2011)A bibliometric approach to tracking big data research trends (2017)The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review (1990)Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: a systematic review (2007)The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals (2019)Publication and related biases. (2000)How Much Better Are the Most-Prestigious Journals? The Statistics of Academic Publication (2005)Use of the h index in neurosurgery (2009)Muscle, Ligaments and Tendons Journal. Basic principles and recommendations in clinical and field science research. (2013)Ethical guidelines for publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle: update 2015 (2015)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2008Ethical authorship and publishing2,141 cited
  • 2007Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors551 cited
  • 1990Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism350 cited
  • 2002Effects of Editorial Peer Review347 cited
  • 2006Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics: a Publisher's Perspective231 cited
  • 2002Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review230 cited
  • 2010Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial163 cited
  • 1994Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language158 cited
  • 2009Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: results of an international survey155 cited
  • 2002Author Perception of Peer Review140 cited
  • 2010Classical peer review: an empty gun134 cited
  • 2008Does double-blind review benefit female authors?84 cited
  • 2010Is open peer review the fairest system? Yes80 cited
  • 2010Is open peer review the fairest system? No77 cited
  • 1998Freedom and Responsibility in Medical Publication60 cited

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

2008
Content and communication: How can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing?
57 cited

Cited by

  • 2023Research integrity in randomized clinical trials: A scoping umbrella review24 cited
  • 2022Process Evaluations of Positive Youth Development Programmes for Disadvantaged Young People: A Systematic Review22 cited
  • 2014How to review journal manuscripts: A lesson learnt from the world's excellent reviewers16 cited