SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Peering Into Peer Review
0 references·8 citing·38 second hop
Peering Into Peer Review (2014)Peering Into Peer ReviewUsing the peer review process to educate and empower emerging nurse scholars (2020)Using the peer review process…Lotteries make science fairer (2020)Lotteries make science fairerAssessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada (2018)Assessment of potential bias …Addressing Reproducibility: Peer Review, Impact Factors, Checklists, Guidelines, and Reproducibility Initiatives (2017)Addressing Reproducibility: P…Research Funding: the Case for a Modified Lottery (2016)Research Funding: the Case fo…Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level (2016)Relative Citation Ratio (RCR)…Science as a Social Enterprise (2015)Science as a Social EnterpriseA comparison of the quality of reviewer reports from author-suggested reviewers and editor-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or closed peer review models (2013)A comparison of the quality o…Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study (2006)Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors (2006)Scholarly peer reviewing′: The art, its joys and woes (2015)How open science helps researchers succeed (2016)A validation study on the factors affecting the practice modes of open peer review (2022)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition (2016)Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications (2018)Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions (2019)False-Positive Psychology (2011)Re-purposing the master's tools: the open source seed initiative and the struggle for seed sovereignty (2014)An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output (2005)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture (2024)Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. (1994)Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students (2012)Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review (2018)Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency (2019)Exploring Gender Bias in Six Key Domains of Academic Science: An Adversarial Collaboration (2023)Co‐citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents (1973)Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics (2015)Some bibliometric procedures for analyzing and evaluating research fields (2017)Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure (2018)Topic choice contributes to the lower rate of NIH awards to African-American/black scientists (2019)Peer Review in Health Sciences (1999)Peer review in health sciences (2002)Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. (2008)Peer review in scientific publishing: Current practice, guidelines, relevancy, and way forward (2023)Justice as Fairness (1958)Science in Action (1987)Justice as Fairness: A Restatement (2002)Random grant allocation from the researchers’ perspective: Introducing the distinction into legitimate and illegitimate problems in Bourdieu’s field theory (2022)New Arguments for a pure lottery in Research Funding: A Sketch for a Future Science Policy Without Time-Consuming Grant Competitions (2023)Funding lotteries for research grant allocation: An extended taxonomy and evaluation of their fairness (2024)
this work references cited by second hop

References

No references inside the corpus for this window.

Cited by

  • 2016Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level507 cited
  • 2016Research Funding: the Case for a Modified Lottery186 cited
  • 2018Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada156 cited
  • 2013A comparison of the quality of reviewer reports from author-suggested reviewers and editor-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or closed peer review models16 cited
  • 2020Using the peer review process to educate and empower emerging nurse scholars14 cited
  • 2020Lotteries make science fairer12 cited
  • 2017Addressing Reproducibility: Peer Review, Impact Factors, Checklists, Guidelines, and Reproducibility Initiatives11 cited
  • 2015Science as a Social Enterprise4 cited

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