Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

A content analysis of referees’ comments: how do comments on manuscripts rejected by a high-impact journal and later published in either a low- or high-impact journal differ?

16 references·13 citing·34 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

2007What Causes a Management Article to be Cited—Article, Author, or Journal?399 cited
2001Editorial peer review : its strengths and weaknesses231 cited
1969Public Knowledge: An essay Concerning the Social Dimension of Science228 cited
1998Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today—Part 1195 cited
1969Public Knowledge: An Essay concerning the Social Dimension of Science189 cited
2007Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals184 cited
1992Stealing into Print162 cited
1993Stealing Into Print: Fraud, Plagiarism and Misconduct in Scientific Publishing141 cited
2003‘Why not give us the full story?’: functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers134 cited
2008Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice119 cited
2008Reviewing Peer Review119 cited
1993Guardians of Science111 cited
1994Guardians of Science: Fairness and Reliability of Peer Review109 cited
2002Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses81 cited
2008Selecting manuscripts for a high‐impact journal through peer review: A citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere

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

73 cited

2008The Effectiveness of the Peer Review Process: Inter‐Referee Agreement and Predictive Validity of Manuscript Refereeing at Angewandte Chemie70 cited

Cited by

2012Citation gamesmanship: testing for evidence of ego bias in peer review41 cited
2016What We Still Don't Know About Peer Review38 cited
2017Assessing peer review by gauging the fate of rejected manuscripts: the case of the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation32 cited
2017Difficulty of recruiting reviewers predicts review scores and editorial decisions at six journals of ecology and evolution28 cited
2010How Long is the Peer Review Process for Journal Manuscripts? A Case Study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition27 cited
2012In public peer review of submitted manuscripts, how do reviewer comments differ from comments written by interested members of the scientific community? A content analysis of comments written for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics25 cited
2014Testing for the fairness and predictive validity of research funding decisions: A multilevel multiple imputation for missing data approach using ex‐ante and ex‐post peer evaluation data from the A ustrian science fund21 cited
2019The language of peer review reports on articles published in the BMJ, 2014–2017: an observational study20 cited
2016Motivos de rejeição dos artigos nos periódicos de administração17 cited
2020Reading Peer Review14 cited
2016Uma Análise Comparativa dos Fatores de Rejeição nos Periódicos de Diferentes Estratos de Administração13 cited
2013Mistakes encountered in manuscripts on education and their effects on journal rejections12 cited
2011Does the h index for assessing single publications really work? A case study on papers published in chemistry12 cited