SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Secretive and Subjective, Peer Review Proves Resistant to Study
0 references·6 citing·30 second hop
Secretive and Subjective, Peer Review Proves Resistant to Study (2013)Secretive and Subjective, Peer Review Pro…Progressive and degenerative journals: on the growth and appraisal of knowledge in scholarly publishing (2022)Progressive and degenerative …Can transparency undermine peer review? A simulation model of scientist behavior under open peer review (2022)Can transparency undermine pe…Social Network Positions, Peer Effects, and Evaluation Updating: An Experimental Test in the Entrepreneurial Context (2021)Social Network Positions, Pee…The peer review process: a primer forJNISreaders (2015)The peer review process: a pr…Is three better than one? simulating the effect of reviewer selection and behavior on the quality and efficiency of peer review (2015)Is three better than one? sim…With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: the Importance of Rejection, Power, and Editors in the Practice of Scientific Publishing (2013)With Great Power Comes Great …Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact (2013)JNIS podcasts: the early part of our journey (2016)The Peer Review Process: Underwriting Manuscript Quality & Validity (2018)Highly cited forensic practitioners in the discipline legal and forensic medicine and the importance of peer-review and publication for admission of expert testimony (2022)Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors (2007)Collaboration and Productivity in Scientific Synthesis (2011)Flows of Research Manuscripts Among Scientific Journals Reveal Hidden Submission Patterns (2012)The Strength of Weak Ties (1973)Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital (1988)Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks (2001)Network growth dynamics: The simultaneous interaction between network positions and research performance of collaborative organisations (2022)Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Scientific peer review (2011)Bias in peer review (2012)How to motivate a reviewer with a present bias to work harder (2023)A typology of peer-reviewers: role, characteristics, and egoistic and altruistic perspectives (2024)Can peer review accolade awards motivate reviewers? A large-scale quasi-natural experiment (2024)Exchange and Power in Social Life. (1965)How Professors Think (2009)Toward a Comparative Sociology of Valuation and Evaluation (2012)Can open peer review improve uptake of preprints into policies? Evidence from a causal inference (2023)The academic status of reviewers predicts their language use (2023)Does the disconnect between the peer-reviewed label and reality explain the peer review crisis, and can open peer review or preprints resolve it? A narrative review (2025)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science (2015)Towards a new paradigm for ‘journal quality’ criteria: a scoping review (2022)Early career researchers and predatory journals during the Covid-19 pandemic. An international analysis (2023)Exploring research quality and journal representation: a comparative study of African Journals Online, Scopus, and Web of Science (2024)
this work references cited by second hop

References

No references inside the corpus for this window.

Cited by

  • 2022Can transparency undermine peer review? A simulation model of scientist behavior under open peer review22 cited
  • 2021Social Network Positions, Peer Effects, and Evaluation Updating: An Experimental Test in the Entrepreneurial Context20 cited
  • 2022Progressive and degenerative journals: on the growth and appraisal of knowledge in scholarly publishing20 cited
  • 2015Is three better than one? simulating the effect of reviewer selection and behavior on the quality and efficiency of peer review16 cited
  • 2015The peer review process: a primer forJNISreaders11 cited
  • 2013With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: the Importance of Rejection, Power, and Editors in the Practice of Scientific Publishing7 cited

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