SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Publish and perish: why the current publication and review model is killing research and wasting your money
3 references·5 citing·41 second hop
Publish and perish: why the current publication and review model is killing research and wasting your money (2007)Publish and perish: why the current publi…Finding scientific gems with Google’s PageRank algorithm (2006)Finding scientific gems with …Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? (2000)Reproducibility of peer revie…The Effects of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review (1994)The Effects of Blinding on Ac…Publish to earn incentives: how do Indonesian professors respond to the new policy? (2018)Publish to earn incentives: h…Designing next-generation platforms for evaluating scientific output: what scientists can learn from the social web (2012)Designing next-generation pla…Rebooting the CS publication process (2011)Rebooting the CS publication …A literate experimentation manifesto (2011)A literate experimentation ma…New journal models and publishing perspectives in the evolving digital environment (2010)New journal models and publis…Networks of Scientific Papers (1965)Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification (1972)Power and Centrality: A Family of Measures (1987)A Principal Component Analysis of 39 Scientific Impact Measures (2009)Green supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis (2015)Supply chain finance: A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis (2018)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine (1992)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Testing and adjusting for publication bias (2001)The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review (2016)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Protection of information in computer systems (1975)Diffusion of scientific credits and the ranking of scientists (2009)Metrics: Do metrics matter? (2010)Publish now, judge later (2014)Being Reasonable (2015)A survey of accepted authors in computer systems conferences (2020)An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output (2005)Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank (2013)The Logic of Scientific Discovery (2013)A comparison of downloads, readership and citations data for the Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ideas (2014)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)Two new Later Stone Age sites from the Final Pleistocene in the Falémé Valley, eastern Senegal (2024)The New Production of Knowledge (1994)The New production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies (1995)The history of the peer-review process (2002)An analysis of open access scholarly communication Tanzanian public universities (2010)Tracing the development of an emergent part-genre: The author summary (2015)The medical research paper: Structure and functions (1997)Producing wrong data without doing anything obviously wrong! (2009)SHARE: a web portal for creating and sharing executable research papers (2011)Chance and Consensus in Peer Review (1981)Nepotism and sexism in peer-review (1997)Bias in peer review (2012)Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance and Resource Allocation in Science (2014)Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review (2017)Using thematic analysis in psychology (2006)Research Methods in Education (2007)Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.): Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2008)Turning the tide of parachute science (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2006Finding scientific gems with Google’s PageRank algorithm481 cited
  • 2000Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?254 cited
  • 1994The Effects of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review164 cited

Cited by

  • 2018Publish to earn incentives: how do Indonesian professors respond to the new policy?47 cited
  • 2010New journal models and publishing perspectives in the evolving digital environment31 cited
  • 2012Designing next-generation platforms for evaluating scientific output: what scientists can learn from the social web20 cited
  • 2011Rebooting the CS publication process10 cited
  • 2011A literate experimentation manifesto4 cited

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