SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Improving peer review: increasing reviewer participation
7 references·2 citing·39 second hop
Improving peer review: increasing reviewer participation (2011)Improving peer review: increasing reviewe…The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature (2010)The ethics of scholarly peer …The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium (2009)The Neuroscience Peer Review …Improving the peer review process with information technology (2008)Improving the peer review pro…The ups and downs of peer review (2007)The ups and downs of peer rev…Through a glass darkly (2006)Through a glass darklyOnline submission and peer‐review systems (2005)Online submission and peer‐re…Impartial Judgment by the “Gatekeepers” of Science: Fallibility and Accountability in the Peer Review Process (2003)Impartial Judgment by the “Ga…Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process (2024)Paying reviewers and regulati…Gender differences in providing peer review to two behavioural science journals, 2006–2015 (2017)Gender differences in providi…Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports (1998)Positive-Outcome Bias and Other Limitations in the Outcome of Research Abstracts Submitted to a Scientific Meeting (1998)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases (2010)Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep with five legs (2011)AI-assisted peer review (2021)Little Science, Big Science...and Beyond (1986)Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research (1997)An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output (2005)Peer review and secrecy in the “Information Age” (2008)Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly (2010)Preserving the Quality of Scientific Research: Peer Review of Research Articles (2017)Attitudes of Journal Editors to Nonnative Speaker Contributions (2001)Different Patterns of Duplicate Publication (2004)The language of science (2004)Early career researchers: Scholarly behaviour and the prospect of change (2017)Peer review: The experience and views of early career researchers (2017)Supporting student and teacher feedback literacy: an instructional model for student feedback processes (2021)Grounding in communication. (1991)Design science in information systems research (2004)Design Science in Information Systems Research1 (2004)Peering Into Peer Review (2010)How to improve the quality of peer reviews? – Three suggestions for system-level changes (2016)Fundamental problems in the peer‐review process and stakeholders' perceptions of potential suggestions for improvement (2024)The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1991)Requisitos uniformes para manuscritos submetidos a periódicos biomédicos: escrevendo e editando para publicações biomédicas (2006)Scientific Utopia: I. Opening Scientific Communication (2012)How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications (2014)The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review (2016)Research, Teaching, and Service: Why Shouldn't Women's Work Count? (1996)Beyond Bias and Barriers : Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering (2007)Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence (2010)Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (2006)The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index (2010)Predatory journals: no definition, no defence (2019)Roles, Challenges, and Sustainability of Australian Journals: A Survey of Editors (2025)Negative changes in the scientific publication process in ecology: potential causes and consequences (2010)Dos and don'ts of a successfully peer-reviewed publication: From A–Z (2020)Towards improving peer review: Crowd-sourced insights from Twitter (2022)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2007The ups and downs of peer review296 cited
  • 2003Impartial Judgment by the “Gatekeepers” of Science: Fallibility and Accountability in the Peer Review Process199 cited
  • 2010The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature84 cited
  • 2005Online submission and peer‐review systems77 cited
  • 2008Improving the peer review process with information technology25 cited
  • 2006Through a glass darkly20 cited
  • 2009The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium10 cited

Cited by

  • 2017Gender differences in providing peer review to two behavioural science journals, 2006–20157 cited
  • 2024Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process6 cited

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