SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Effect of Recommendations from Reviewers Suggested or Excluded by Authors
7 references·2 citing·40 second hop
Effect of Recommendations from Reviewers Suggested or Excluded by Authors (2011)Effect of Recommendations from Reviewers …Do Author-Suggested Reviewers Rate Submissions More Favorably than Editor-Suggested Reviewers? A Study on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (2010)Do Author-Suggested Reviewers…Committee on publication ethics (2010)Committee on publication ethi…Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors (2006)Differences in Review Quality…Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study (2006)Are reviewers suggested by au…Reviewer bias: a blinded experimental study. (1994)Reviewer bias: a blinded expe…Chance, concurrence, and clustering. Analysis of reviewers' recommendations on 1,000 submissions to the Journal of Clinical Investigation. (1994)Chance, concurrence, and clus…Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system (1977)Publication prejudices: An ex…Characteristics of Peer Review Reports: Editor-Suggested Versus Author-Suggested Reviewers (2019)Characteristics of Peer Revie…Should authors suggest reviewers? A comparative study of the performance of author‐suggested and editor‐selected reviewers at a biological journal (2018)Should authors suggest review…Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Peer Review in Health Sciences (1999)Peer review in health sciences (2002)The manuscript reviewing process: Empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review (2009)Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models (2015)The good, the bad and the rude peer-review (2020)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. (2008)Predictive Validity Evidence for Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument Scores: Quality of Submissions to JGIM’s Medical Education Special Issue (2008)Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel (2011)Chance and Consensus in Peer Review (1981)The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation (1990)Agreement among reviewers of review articles (1991)Reviewing scientific papers. (1995)Accuracy in the Identification of Scholarly and Peer-Reviewed Journals and the Peer-Review Process Across Disciplines (2003)Fraud and misconduct in science: the stem cell seduction (2009)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)The Outer circle: women in the scientific community (1992)Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors (2007)The reviewer in the mirror: examining gendered and ethnicized notions of reciprocity in peer review (2014)Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study (2015)Author‐suggested reviewers: gender differences and influences on the peer review process at an ecology journal (2016)The American Psychological Association (1919)Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. (1971)Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders (1975)Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. (1979)Decision Making in Health and Medicine: Integrating Evidence and Values (2001)Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory (2011)Reliability of Editors' Subjective Quality Ratings of Peer Reviews of Manuscripts (1998)Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Do reviewers get their deserved acknowledgments from the authors of manuscripts? (2023)Peer review practices in academic medicine: how the example of orthopaedic surgery may help shift the paradigm? (2023)Author academic influence and manuscript acceptance: Evidence from peer review in cell press journals (2025)How reliable is peer review? An examination of operating grant proposals simultaneously submitted to two similar peer review systems (1997)Strategies to improve vaccination uptake in Australia, a systematic review of types and effectiveness (2012)Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice (2016)Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: results of an international survey (2009)Self-Plagiarism or Appropriate Textual Re-use? (2009)Plagiarism in Scientific Publishing (2012)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1977Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system1,013 cited
  • 2010Committee on publication ethics201 cited
  • 2006Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors147 cited
  • 2006Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study88 cited
  • 1994Reviewer bias: a blinded experimental study.57 cited
  • 2010Do Author-Suggested Reviewers Rate Submissions More Favorably than Editor-Suggested Reviewers? A Study on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics43 cited
  • 1994Chance, concurrence, and clustering. Analysis of reviewers' recommendations on 1,000 submissions to the Journal of Clinical Investigation.25 cited

Cited by

  • 2019Characteristics of Peer Review Reports: Editor-Suggested Versus Author-Suggested Reviewers9 cited
  • 2018Should authors suggest reviewers? A comparative study of the performance of author‐suggested and editor‐selected reviewers at a biological journal8 cited

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