SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Landmark, Landmine, or Landfill? The Role of Peer Review in Assessing Manuscripts
10 references·1 citing·47 second hop
Landmark, Landmine, or Landfill? The Role of Peer Review in Assessing Manuscripts (2007)Landmark, Landmine, or Landfill? The Role…Peer review in open access scientific journals. (2007)Peer review in open access sc…A Comparison of Reviewers Selected by Editors and Reviewers Suggested by Authors (2007)A Comparison of Reviewers Sel…Single- versus double-blind reviewing (2006)Single- versus double-blind r…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…The Hidden Research Paper (2002)The Hidden Research PaperFourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication (2002)Fourth International Congress…Effects of Editorial Peer Review (2002)Effects of Editorial Peer Rev…A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process. (2000)A comparison of reports from …How blind is blind review? (1984)How blind is blind review?A Primer on Peer Review (2007)A Primer on Peer ReviewFrom conference abstract to full paper: differences between data presented in conferences and journals (2005)Avaliação aberta pelos pares no âmbito da Ciência Aberta (2020)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)Journal Peer Review (1985)A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine (1992)The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias (2002)Elaboración de directrices para la publicación de investigación biomédica: proceso y fundamento científico (2005)Statistical Reviewers Improve Reporting in Biomedical Articles: A Randomized Trial (2007)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)The scientific publication system in social science (1978)Manuscript characteristics influencing reviewers' decisions. (1980)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Creativity research: Originality, utility, and integration (1988)The Review Process at PSPB: Correlates of Interreviewer Agreement and Manuscript Acceptance (1999)The cases for and against double-blind reviews (2019)Systematic Reviews in Health Care : Meta-Analysis in Context (2000)Statistical Methods for Examining Heterogeneity and Combining Results from Several Studies in Meta‐Analysis (2001)Systematic Reviews in Health Care. Meta-analysis in Context. (2002)A review of the review process: manuscript peer-review in biomedical research (2009)Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers? (2017)Is the quality of reviews reflected in editors' and authors' satisfaction with peer review? A cross‐sectional study in 12 journals across four research fields (2020)Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism (1990)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (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)Science in Action (1987)When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable (1997)The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration (2001)How to Write a Research Paper (2004)Consistency in the Analysis and Reporting of Primary End Points in Oncology Randomized Controlled Trials From Registration to Publication: A Systematic Review (2011)Are women prejudiced against women? (1968)Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system (1971)A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants (2010)Emerging trends in peer review—a survey (2015)Nobel and Novice: Author Prominence Affects Peer Review (2022)Accuracy in the Identification of Scholarly and Peer-Reviewed Journals and the Peer-Review Process Across Disciplines (2003)Assessment of Publication Bias in Dental Specialty Journals (2010)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2002Effects of Editorial Peer Review347 cited
  • 2006Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors147 cited
  • 1984How blind is blind review?125 cited
  • 2006Single- versus double-blind reviewing118 cited
  • 2006Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study88 cited
  • 2002The Hidden Research Paper75 cited
  • 2002Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication75 cited
  • 2007A Comparison of Reviewers Selected by Editors and Reviewers Suggested by Authors34 cited
  • 2000A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process.27 cited
  • 2007Peer review in open access scientific journals.12 cited

Cited by

  • 2007A Primer on Peer Review9 cited

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