SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Systematic review of the effectiveness of training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, and manuscript peer review (protocol)
16 references·7 citing·43 second hop
Systematic review of the effectiveness of training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, and manuscript peer review (protocol) (2013)Systematic review of the effectiveness of…Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (2011)Recommendations for examining…Testing for the Presence of Positive-Outcome Bias in Peer Review (2010)Testing for the Presence of P…Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: results of an international survey (2009)Science journal editors’ view…Avoidable Waste in the Production and Reporting of Research Evidence (2009)Avoidable Waste in the Produc…An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies (2009)An evidence-based practice gu…What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? (2008)What is missing from descript…Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)Cochrane Handbook for Systema…Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies (2008)Assessing Risk of Bias in Inc…Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta‐Analyses (2008)Analysing Data and Undertakin…Addressing Reporting Biases (2008)Addressing Reporting BiasesThe ups and downs of peer review (2007)The ups and downs of peer rev…Publish or perish: a systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates (2006)Publish or perish: a systemat…Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial (2004)Effects of training on qualit…Peer review in health sciences (2002)Peer review in health sciencesPeer Review in Health Sciences (1999)Peer Review in Health SciencesEffect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Effect of Blinding and Unmask…La revisión por pares (“peer review”) en las revistas científicas: un proceso que requiere intervención (2019)La revisión por pares (“peer …Reviewer selection biases editorial decisions on manuscripts (2018)Reviewer selection biases edi…Designs of trials assessing interventions to improve the peer review process: a vignette-based survey (2018)Designs of trials assessing i…Reviewers’ Perceptions of the Peer Review Process in Journalism and Mass Communication (2017)Reviewers’ Perceptions of the…Learning About and Benefiting From Peer Review: A Course Assignment for Doctoral Students at Two Different Universities (2016)Learning About and Benefiting…Essential Components of Educational Programs on Biomedical Writing, Editing, and Publishing (2015)Essential Components of Educa…Developing a culture of publication: a joint enterprise writing retreat (2015)Developing a culture of publi…The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies (2008)Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study (2008)Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research (2010)GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness (2011)Meta-analysis in clinical trials (1986)Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis (2002)Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews (2014)The role of masculinity in men's help-seeking for depression: A systematic review (2016)Basics of meta‐analysis: I 2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity (2017)Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials (1995)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Searching for Studies (2008)Are Health Behavior Change Interventions That Use Online Social Networks Effective? A Systematic Review (2014)Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials (2014)Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies (2018)Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement (1996)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials (2004)A refined taxonomy of behaviour change techniques to help people change their physical activity and healthy eating behaviours: The CALO-RE taxonomy (2011)Behaviour change techniques: the development and evaluation of a taxonomic method for reporting and describing behaviour change interventions (a suite of five studies involving consensus methods, randomised controlled trials and analysis of qualitative data) (2015)The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. (1979)Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience (2013)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation (2015)PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts (2007)Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias (2008)Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane reviewa (2012)Systematic review automation technologies (2014)How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set” – a practical guideline (2016)Efficacy of internet-delivered cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia – A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (2015)Effectiveness of online mindfulness-based interventions in improving mental health: A review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (2016)Racial/ethnic discrimination and well-being during adolescence: A meta-analytic review. (2018)Facing up to the challenge: why is it so hard to develop graduate attributes? (2009)Transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust (2012)The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers (2013)Content Validity—Establishing and Reporting the Evidence in Newly Developed Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Instruments for Medical Product Evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report: Part 1—Eliciting Concepts for a New PRO Instrument (2011)COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies) (2014)Iterative categorization (IC): a systematic technique for analysing qualitative data (2016)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions25,045 cited
  • 2011Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials7,681 cited
  • 2008Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies3,395 cited
  • 2008Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta‐Analyses1,795 cited
  • 2008Addressing Reporting Biases651 cited
  • 2008What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews?613 cited
  • 2009An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies607 cited
  • 2009Avoidable Waste in the Production and Reporting of Research Evidence600 cited
  • 2006Publish or perish: a systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates524 cited
  • 2002Peer review in health sciences349 cited
  • 2007The ups and downs of peer review296 cited
  • 1998Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review281 cited
  • 1999Peer Review in Health Sciences268 cited
  • 2004Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial268 cited
  • 2010Testing for the Presence of Positive-Outcome Bias in Peer Review245 cited

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

  • 2009Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: results of an international survey155 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2017Reviewers’ Perceptions of the Peer Review Process in Journalism and Mass Communication17 cited
    • 2018Designs of trials assessing interventions to improve the peer review process: a vignette-based survey17 cited
    • 2016Learning About and Benefiting From Peer Review: A Course Assignment for Doctoral Students at Two Different Universities16 cited
    • 2018Reviewer selection biases editorial decisions on manuscripts15 cited
    • 2015Developing a culture of publication: a joint enterprise writing retreat15 cited
    • 2015Essential Components of Educational Programs on Biomedical Writing, Editing, and Publishing14 cited
    • 2019La revisión por pares (“peer review”) en las revistas científicas: un proceso que requiere intervención11 cited