SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Processo de Revisão Pelos Pares: Por que São Rejeitados os Manuscritos Submetidos a um Periódico Científico?
5 references·1 citing·24 second hop
Processo de Revisão Pelos Pares: Por que São Rejeitados os Manuscritos Submetidos a um Periódico Científico? (2009)Processo de Revisão Pelos Pares: Por que …Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice (2008)Peer Review and Manuscript Ma…Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice (2008)Peer Review and Manuscript Ma…Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? A quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication (2008)Do editors and referees look …Quality of scientific articles (2006)Quality of scientific articlesEthical dilemmas in scientific publication: pitfalls and solutions for editors (2006)Ethical dilemmas in scientifi…Revista Brasileira de Ciências do Esporte: Dificuldades, desafios e dilemas da editoração científica (2014)Revista Brasileira de Ciência…Fortnightly Review: How can impact factors be improved? (1996)PUBLICAR MAIS, OU MELHOR? O TAMANDUÁ OLÍMPICO (2007)A influência do sistema de avaliação Qualis na produção de conhecimento científico: algumas reflexões sobre a Educação Física (2010)A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial (1981)Journal impact factor: a brief review. (1999)Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)A qualidade das publicações científicas: considerações de um Editor de Área ao final do mandato (2009)Publicação em periódicos científicos: ética, qualidade e avaliação da pesquisa (2014)Online Manuscript Editing Services for Multilingual Authors: A Content Analysis Study (2021)The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (1974)A Social History of Truth (1994)Evaluating altmetrics (2013)THE SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE:: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (2017)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials (2001)Different Patterns of Duplicate Publication (2004)Suspected research fraud: difficulties of getting at the truth (2005)Responding to Possible Plagiarism (2009)A review of the literature on ethical issues related to scientific authorship (2020)Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? (2011)Scientific peer review (2011)Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals (2012)Strategies and attributes of highly productive scholars and contributors to the school psychology literature: Recommendations for increasing scholarly productivity (2011)A label for peer‐reviewed books (2012)Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM (2019)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2008Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice119 cited
  • 2006Ethical dilemmas in scientific publication: pitfalls and solutions for editors75 cited
  • 2008Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? A quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication66 cited
  • 2008Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice57 cited
  • 2006Quality of scientific articles50 cited

Cited by

  • 2014Revista Brasileira de Ciências do Esporte: Dificuldades, desafios e dilemas da editoração científica5 cited

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