SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Will technology trample peer review in ecology? Ongoing issues and potential solutions
16 references·5 citing·44 second hop
Will technology trample peer review in ecology? Ongoing issues and potential solutions (2015)Will technology trample peer review in ec…Emerging trends in peer review—a survey (2015)Emerging trends in peer revie…Who's Afraid of Peer Review? (2013)Who's Afraid of Peer Review?The Case for Open Preprints in Biology (2013)The Case for Open Preprints i…Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers (2012)Peer review in a changing wor…Open Peer Review by a Selected-Papers Network (2012)Open Peer Review by a Selecte…Modeling peer review: an agent-based approach (2012)Modeling peer review: an agen…Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: Toward selection of the average (2011)Peer-review in a world with r…Pubcreds: Fixing the Peer Review Process by “Privatizing” the Reviewer Commons (2010)Pubcreds: Fixing the Peer Rev…Classical peer review: an empty gun (2010)Classical peer review: an emp…The manuscript reviewing process: Empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review (2009)The manuscript reviewing proc…Scientific Journal Publishing: Yearly Volume and Open Access Availability. (2009)Scientific Journal Publishing…Is Peer Review a Game of Chance? (2006)Is Peer Review a Game of Chan…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…Nepotism and sexism in peer-review (1997)Nepotism and sexism in peer-r…Irresponsible Authorship and Wasteful Publication (1986)Irresponsible Authorship and …Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Peer-review practices of psyc…A harm reduction approach to improving peer review by acknowledging its imperfections (2024)A harm reduction approach to …Make like a glass frog: In support of increased transparency in herpetology (2021)Make like a glass frog: In su…The relationship of polarity of post-publication peer review to citation count (2020)The relationship of polarity …Addressing Reproducibility: Peer Review, Impact Factors, Checklists, Guidelines, and Reproducibility Initiatives (2017)Addressing Reproducibility: P…Joint editorial – Fostering innovation and improving impact assessment for journal publications in hydrology (2016)Joint editorial – Fostering i…The Chronicle of Higher Education (1977)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Does health informatics have a replication crisis? (2018)Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature (2020)Bad Beliefs (2021)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions (2021)The Publishing Game: Getting More for Less (1981)Publish or Perish: A Proposal (1986)A proposal for a new system of credit allocation in science (1997)Preventing scientific misconduct. (1998)How Many Neurosurgeons Does It Take to Write a Research Article? Authorship Proliferation in Neurosurgical Research (2000)Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2011)An Incentive Solution to the Peer Review Problem (2007)“Let the community decide”? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals (2017)Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers? (2017)The crisis of peer review: Part of the evolution of science (2024)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)The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access (2004)Study on the economic and technical evolution of the scientific publication markets in Europe (2006)Ten-Year Cross-Disciplinary Comparison of the Growth of Open Access and How it Increases Research Citation Impact (2006)Delayed open access: An overlooked high‐impact category of openly available scientific literature (2013)The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review (2016)A survey on scholarly data: From big data perspective (2017)Chance and Consensus in Peer Review (1981)A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants (2010)Ranking Games (2014)How to Make More Published Research True (2014)How open science helps researchers succeed (2016)The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review (2016)Performance in Competitive Environments: Gender Differences (2003)The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics (2007)Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science (2011)On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers (2013)The value of peer review (2014)Ten considerations for open peer review (2018)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1997Nepotism and sexism in peer-review1,346 cited
  • 1982Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again1,071 cited
  • 2013Who's Afraid of Peer Review?934 cited
  • 2012Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers393 cited
  • 2000Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?254 cited
  • 2009Scientific Journal Publishing: Yearly Volume and Open Access Availability.193 cited
  • 2015Emerging trends in peer review—a survey192 cited
  • 1986Irresponsible Authorship and Wasteful Publication184 cited
  • 2010Classical peer review: an empty gun134 cited
  • 2010Pubcreds: Fixing the Peer Review Process by “Privatizing” the Reviewer Commons89 cited
  • 2012Open Peer Review by a Selected-Papers Network85 cited
  • 2011Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: Toward selection of the average83 cited
  • 2006Is Peer Review a Game of Chance?81 cited
  • 2013The Case for Open Preprints in Biology74 cited
  • 2009The manuscript reviewing process: Empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review

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

54 cited
  • 2012Modeling peer review: an agent-based approach26 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2020The relationship of polarity of post-publication peer review to citation count13 cited
    • 2017Addressing Reproducibility: Peer Review, Impact Factors, Checklists, Guidelines, and Reproducibility Initiatives11 cited
    • 2016Joint editorial – Fostering innovation and improving impact assessment for journal publications in hydrology10 cited
    • 2024A harm reduction approach to improving peer review by acknowledging its imperfections8 cited
    • 2021Make like a glass frog: In support of increased transparency in herpetology7 cited