SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Improving the peer review process in orthopaedic journals
10 references·1 citing·43 second hop
Improving the peer review process in orthopaedic journals (2013)Improving the peer review process in orth…Peer review in scientific publications (2012)Peer review in scientific pub…A systematic survey of the quality of research reporting in general orthopaedic journals (2011)A systematic survey of the qu…A survey of orthopaedic journal editors determining the criteria of manuscript selection for publication (2011)A survey of orthopaedic journ…Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial (2000)Open peer review: A randomise…Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Effect of open peer review on…Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for Assessing Peer Reviews of Manuscripts (1999)Development of the Review Qua…Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality? (1998)Does Masking Author Identity …The Effects of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review (1994)The Effects of Blinding on Ac…Peer Review in Medical Journals (1987)Peer Review in Medical Journa…Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Peer-review practices of psyc…Variability of Reviewers' Comments in the Peer Review Process for Orthopaedic Research (2016)Variability of Reviewers' Com…Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: implications for the conduct of meta-analyses. (1999)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)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)A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine (1992)Testing and adjusting for publication bias (2001)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. (1968)Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (1989)The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. (1998)What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? (2008)A systematic review of tools used to assess the quality of observational studies that examine incidence or prevalence and risk factors for diseases (2010)Statistical Evaluation of Medical Journal Manuscripts (1966)Editorial peer review: Let us put it on trial (1992)More Peering Into Editorial Peer Review (1993)Peer review (2014)Statistical principles in experimental design. (1962)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)Toward an experimental ecology of human development. (1977)Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. (1995)Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Sustainability (2011)The Significance of Insecure and Disorganized Attachment for Children’s Internalizing Symptoms: A Meta-Analytic Study (2012)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Nepotism and sexism in peer-review (1997)Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases (2010)Ready! Aim! Fire! targeting the right medical science journal (2016)PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL EDITORS’ VIEWS ON REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE (2018)“It is important to reinforce the importance of …”: ‘Hype’ in reports of randomized controlled trials (2019)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies (2007)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)Quality of reporting of clinical non-inferiority and equivalence randomised trials - update and extension (2012)Using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement to Assess Reporting of Observational Trials in Hand Surgery (2013)Evaluation of the Quality of Reporting of Observational Studies in Otorhinolaryngology - Based on the STROBE Statement (2017)Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports (1998)What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal? (1998)A manifesto for reproducible science (2017)How open science helps researchers succeed (2016)The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review (2016)Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature (2017)Supply chain management research impact: an evidence‐based perspective (2013)A critical evaluation of the volume, relevance and quality of evidence submitted by the tobacco industry to oppose standardised packaging of tobacco products (2014)CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2012 Update (2016)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1982Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again1,071 cited
  • 1999Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial415 cited
  • 1998Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?278 cited
  • 2000Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial261 cited
  • 1999Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for Assessing Peer Reviews of Manuscripts177 cited
  • 1994The Effects of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review164 cited
  • 2011A systematic survey of the quality of research reporting in general orthopaedic journals56 cited
  • 2012Peer review in scientific publications52 cited
  • 1987Peer Review in Medical Journals25 cited
  • 2011A survey of orthopaedic journal editors determining the criteria of manuscript selection for publication16 cited

Cited by

  • 2016Variability of Reviewers' Comments in the Peer Review Process for Orthopaedic Research8 cited

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