SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Nurse editors' views on the peer review process
15 references·16 citing·44 second hop
Nurse editors' views on the peer review process (2005)Nurse editors' views on the peer review p…An International Survey of Nurse Editors' Roles and Practices (2005)An International Survey of Nu…Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review (2002)Measuring the Quality of Edit…Making Reviewers Visible (2002)Making Reviewers VisibleEffects of Editorial Peer Review (2002)Effects of Editorial Peer Rev…Effect of Written Feedback by Editors on Quality of Reviews (2002)Effect of Written Feedback by…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…Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial (2000)Open peer review: A randomise…Reliability of Editors' Subjective Quality Ratings of Peer Reviews of Manuscripts (1998)Reliability of Editors' Subje…Masking Author Identity in Peer Review (1998)Masking Author Identity in Pe…Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Effect of Blinding and Unmask…Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality? (1998)Does Masking Author Identity …Structural Transformations of the Sciences and the End of Peer Review (1994)Structural Transformations of…Qualitative Content Analysis: A Guide to Paths not Taken (1993)Qualitative Content Analysis:…Content analysis: Method, applications, and issues (1992)Content analysis: Method, app…The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation (1991)The reliability of peer revie…Alice through the Looking-glass: Can We Improve Peer Review? (2022)Alice through the Looking-gla…Current Controversies Regarding Peer Review in Scholarly Journals (2018)Current Controversies Regardi…Blind Peer Review by Academic Journals (2016)Blind Peer Review by Academic…Attitudes Toward Blinding of Peer Review and Perceptions of Efficacy Within a Small Biomedical Specialty (2014)Attitudes Toward Blinding of …Validity and reliability of the scientific review process in nursing journals – time for a rethink? (2013)Validity and reliability of t…O processo de revisão por pares: uma revisão integrativa de literatura (2012)O processo de revisão por par…Should Biomedical Publishing Be “Opened Up”? Toward a Values-Based Peer-Review Process (2011)Should Biomedical Publishing …Conceptual Debates and Empirical Evidence About the Peer Review Process for Scholarly Journals (2011)Conceptual Debates and Empiri…Shifting Power Relations and the Ethics of Journal Peer Review (2010)Shifting Power Relations and …Online Survey of Nursing Journal Peer Reviewers: Indicators of Quality in Manuscripts (2010)Online Survey of Nursing Jour…Manuscript peer review: A guide for advanced practice nurses (2010)Manuscript peer review: A gui…Choosing a Publication Venue (2010)Choosing a Publication VenueBarriers and Strategies to the Revision Process From an Editor's Perspective (2009)Barriers and Strategies to th…Peer Review: The Best of the Blemished? (2007)Peer Review: The Best of the …Beyond objective and balanced: Writing constructive manuscript reviews (2006)Beyond objective and balanced…”Voice of the profession:” Nurse editors as leaders (2006)”Voice of the profession:” Nu…The Practice of Social Research. (1976)Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. (1984)Basic Content Analysis (1986)Directed qualitative content analysis: the description and elaboration of its underpinning methods and data analysis process (2018)How Many Ways Can We Define Online Learning? A Systematic Literature Review of Definitions of Online Learning (1988-2018) (2019)Abstraction and interpretation during the qualitative content analysis process (2020)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)Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism (1990)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)A Descriptive and Historical Review of Bibliometrics with Applications to Medical Sciences (2015)Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2016)Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports (1998)Poor-quality medical research: what can journals do? (2002)Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals (2008)We Have to Break Up (2009)A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants (2010)A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales (1960)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)Scientific Culture and Educational Research (2002)Scientific Culture and Educational Research (2005)Self and Peer Assessment in School and University: Reliability, Validity and Utility (2006)Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools (1991)Doing Qualitative Research (1993)Content analysis: concepts, methods and applications (1997)Focus group methodology: a review (1998)Getting the Focus and the Group: Enhancing Analytical Rigor in Focus Group Research (2000)What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal? (1998)How open science helps researchers succeed (2016)A manifesto for reproducible science (2017)Chance and Consensus in Peer Review (1981)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Nepotism and sexism in peer-review (1997)Ranking Games (2014)Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature (2020)Testing and adjusting for publication bias (2001)A systematic review of randomized trials on the effectiveness of computer-tailored education on physical activity and dietary behaviors (2006)Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors (2007)Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: a systematic review (2007)The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals (2019)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1992Content analysis: Method, applications, and issues2,678 cited
  • 1993Qualitative Content Analysis: A Guide to Paths not Taken1,265 cited
  • 1991The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation496 cited
  • 2002Effects of Editorial Peer Review347 cited
  • 1998Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review281 cited
  • 1998Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?278 cited
  • 2000Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial261 cited
  • 2000Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?254 cited
  • 2002Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review230 cited
  • 2002Making Reviewers Visible167 cited
  • 1998Reliability of Editors' Subjective Quality Ratings of Peer Reviews of Manuscripts122 cited
  • 1998Masking Author Identity in Peer Review104 cited
  • 2002Effect of Written Feedback by Editors on Quality of Reviews76 cited
  • 1994Structural Transformations of the Sciences and the End of Peer Review64 cited
  • 2005An International Survey of Nurse Editors' Roles and Practices46 cited

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

Cited by

  • 2014Attitudes Toward Blinding of Peer Review and Perceptions of Efficacy Within a Small Biomedical Specialty29 cited
  • 2006”Voice of the profession:” Nurse editors as leaders24 cited
  • 2010Manuscript peer review: A guide for advanced practice nurses23 cited
  • 2010Shifting Power Relations and the Ethics of Journal Peer Review22 cited
  • 2012O processo de revisão por pares: uma revisão integrativa de literatura21 cited
  • 2011Conceptual Debates and Empirical Evidence About the Peer Review Process for Scholarly Journals19 cited
  • 2006Beyond objective and balanced: Writing constructive manuscript reviews19 cited
  • 2009Barriers and Strategies to the Revision Process From an Editor's Perspective17 cited
  • 2010Choosing a Publication Venue15 cited
  • 2016Blind Peer Review by Academic Journals13 cited
  • 2018Current Controversies Regarding Peer Review in Scholarly Journals13 cited
  • 2011Should Biomedical Publishing Be “Opened Up”? Toward a Values-Based Peer-Review Process11 cited
  • 2013Validity and reliability of the scientific review process in nursing journals – time for a rethink?10 cited
  • 2022Alice through the Looking-glass: Can We Improve Peer Review?10 cited
  • 2010Online Survey of Nursing Journal Peer Reviewers: Indicators of Quality in Manuscripts9 cited
  • 2007Peer Review: The Best of the Blemished?9 cited