Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

The use of dedicated methodology and statistical reviewers for peer review: A content analysis of comments to authors made by methodology and regular reviewers

6 references·10 citing·46 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

1994Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine324 cited
2000Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?254 cited
1994Instruments for Assessing the Quality of Drug Studies Published in the Medical Literature180 cited
1990An Exploratory Study of Statistical Assessment of Papers Published in the British Medical Journal130 cited
1996Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde84 cited
1994Do Readers and Peer Reviewers Agree on Manuscript Quality?46 cited

Cited by

2020What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis31 cited
2016Deficiencies of effectiveness of intervention studies in veterinary medicine: a cross-sectional survey of ten leading veterinary and medical journals25 cited
2002The effect of dedicated methodology and statistical review on published manuscript quality21 cited
2011A survey of orthopaedic journal editors determining the criteria of manuscript selection for publication16 cited
2015Are Reviewers’ Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports12 cited
2021Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial12 cited

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

2011Should Biomedical Publishing Be “Opened Up”? Toward a Values-Based Peer-Review Process11 cited

2009Evaluating the Surgery Literature11 cited

2011Rebound Peer Review: A Viable Recourse for Aggrieved Authors?10 cited

2010Scientific and statistical reviews of manuscripts submitted to Nursing Research: Comparison of completeness, quality, and usefulness8 cited