SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
The Justification for the Academy Track in mBio
12 references·1 citing·40 second hop
The Justification for the Academy Track in mBio (2015)The Justification for the Academy Track i…Credibility, peer review, and Nature , 1945–1990 (2015)Credibility, peer review, and…Scientific publishing: The inside track (2014)Scientific publishing: The in…Publishing: The peer-review scam (2014)Publishing: The peer-review s…Opening up Peer Review in Life: Towards a Transparent and Reliable Process (2014)Opening up Peer Review in Lif…Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (2006)Peer Review: A Flawed Process…Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Peer review: a flawed process…Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance (2006)Effect of Blinded Peer Review…Effects of Editorial Peer Review (2002)Effects of Editorial Peer Rev…A randomized controlled study of reviewer bias against an unconventional therapy (2000)A randomized controlled study…Opening up BMJ peer review (1999)Opening up BMJ peer reviewMultiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language (1994)Multiple blinded reviews of t…Is There Gender Bias in JAMA's Peer Review Process? (1994)Is There Gender Bias in JAMA'…mSphereDirect: Author-Initiated Peer Review of Manuscripts (2016)mSphereDirect: Author-Initiat…Public Knowledge—The Social Dimension of Science (1968)What mad pursuit: a personal view of scientific discovery (1989)Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism (1990)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant? (2019)The misalignment of incentives in academic publishing and implications for journal reform (2025)Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality? (1998)Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Making Reviewers Visible (2002)Scientific Utopia: I. Opening Scientific Communication (2012)The changing forms and expectations of peer review (2018)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)US and Non-US Submissions (1998)Peer Review in Health Sciences (1999)Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial (2011)Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice (2016)Minimizing the Three Stages of Publication Bias (1990)The Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for Its Occurrence (1990)Gender Effects in the Peer Reviews of Grant Proposals: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Comparing Traditional and Multilevel Approaches (2009)Women in Academic Science (2014)Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994-2014) (2016)Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials (1996)Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German (1997)Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports (1998)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2006)Peering at peer review revealed high degree of chance associated with funding of grant applications (2006)Perfect Study, Poor Evidence: Interpretation of Biases Preceding Study Design (2008)Scientific peer review (2011)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map (2020)Peer-Review Fraud — Hacking the Scientific Publication Process (2015)The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics (2016)Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research (2017)Publication and related biases. (2000)Testing and adjusting for publication bias (2001)How Much Better Are the Most-Prestigious Journals? The Statistics of Academic Publication (2005)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2006Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals868 cited
  • 2006Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals794 cited
  • 2002Effects of Editorial Peer Review347 cited
  • 2006Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance250 cited
  • 2014Publishing: The peer-review scam228 cited
  • 1999Opening up BMJ peer review191 cited
  • 1994Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language158 cited
  • 1994Is There Gender Bias in JAMA's Peer Review Process?132 cited
  • 2000A randomized controlled study of reviewer bias against an unconventional therapy92 cited
  • 2015Credibility, peer review, and Nature , 1945–199062 cited
  • 2014Opening up Peer Review in Life: Towards a Transparent and Reliable Process11 cited
  • 2014Scientific publishing: The inside track6 cited

Cited by

  • 2016mSphereDirect: Author-Initiated Peer Review of Manuscripts6 cited

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