SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
At the frontier of biomedical publication: Chicago 2005
4 references·0 citing·23 second hopsampled
At the frontier of biomedical publication: Chicago 2005 (2005)At the frontier of biomedical publication…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…Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication (2002)Fourth International Congress…Unscientific practice flourishes in science (1998)Unscientific practice flouris…The Effects of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review (1994)The Effects of Blinding on Ac…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)Effects of Editorial Peer Review (2002)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)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Testing and adjusting for publication bias (2001)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review (2016)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Fortnightly Review: How can impact factors be improved? (1996)Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research (1997)Misleading, unscientific, and unjust: the United Kingdom's research assessment exercise (1998)Publication ethics and the research assessment exercise: reflections on the troubled question of authorship (2000)Researchers" and users" perceptions of the relative standing of biomedical papers in different journals (2002)An Assessment of the Predictive Validity of Impact Factor Scores: Implications for Academic Employment Decisions in Social Work (2006)
this work references cited by second hop· second hop is a sample of the most-cited connections

References

  • 1994The Effects of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review164 cited
  • 2006Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study88 cited
  • 2002Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication75 cited
  • 1998Unscientific practice flourishes in science50 cited

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.

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