SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Rigor of Peer Review and the Standing of a Journal
5 references·9 citing·46 second hop
Rigor of Peer Review and the Standing of a Journal (2002)Rigor of Peer Review and the Standing of …How I Review an Original Scientific Article (2002)How I Review an Original Scie…Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (1996)Readers' evaluation of effect…Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine (1994)Manuscript Quality before and…Peer review in biomedical publication (1974)Peer review in biomedical pub…Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system (1971)Patterns of evaluation in sci…Seven Reasons Not to Be a Peer Reviewer—And Why These Reasons Are Wrong (2012)Seven Reasons Not to Be a Pee…A quantitative study on the effectiveness of peer review for academic journals (2012)A quantitative study on the e…Revisar un artículo para Radiología: quién y cómo (2011)Revisar un artículo para Radi…Thirty Years of Impact Factor and the Journal (2004)Thirty Years of Impact Factor…Research Program Peer Review: Purposes, Principles, Practices, Protocols (2004)Research Program Peer Review:…Peer‐Reviewed Publication: A View from Inside (2004)Peer‐Reviewed Publication: A …Mentoring (2004)MentoringAssessing the Performance of a Medical Journal (2004)Assessing the Performance of …Impact Factor and the Journal (2003)Impact Factor and the JournalGuidelines for Statistical Reporting in Articles for Medical Journals (1988)The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation (1990)Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists (1995)The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis (1999)Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography (2007)Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports (1998)Effects of Editorial Peer Review (2002)Sleeping Beauties in science (2004)Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries (2000 – 2013): A Bibliometric Study (2016)The role of guarantor in scientific collaboration: The neighbourhood matters (2016)HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: THE SCIENTIFIC CAREER OF A POLICY CONCEPT (2017)Measure for Measure in Science (1993)The counting house (2002)Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? (2003)Fertility and Sterility: an evaluation (2006)Comparación entre dos quinquenios (1998/2002 y 2003/2007) de la producción, repercusión y colaboración en tabaquismo de autores españoles a través del Science Citation Index (2010)Journal impact factor: A valid symbol of journal quality? (2019)The Social Transformation of American Medicine (1984)Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ (1995)Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (1998)Understanding and Finding Mentorship: A Review for Junior Faculty (2010)The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews (1993)The Title Says It All (2009)The Abstract and the Elevator Talk: A Tale of Two Summaries (2010)Scholarly peer reviewing′: The art, its joys and woes (2015)Do’s and Don’ts for a Good Reviewer of Scientific Papers: A Beginner’s Brief Decalogue (2020)Supporting robust, rigorous, and reliable reviewing as the cornerstone of our profession: Introducing a competency framework for peer review (2020)Citation Analysis as a Tool in Journal Evaluation (1972)A Century of Pulmonary Gas Exchange (2004)Bibliometric Research in Occupational Health (2008)Ethical publishing in intensive care medicine: A narrative review (2016)Progressive and degenerative journals: on the growth and appraisal of knowledge in scholarly publishing (2022)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Effects of Peer Review and Editing on the Readability of Articles Published in Annals of Internal Medicine (1994)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2006)Statistical Reviewers Improve Reporting in Biomedical Articles: A Randomized Trial (2007)CONSORT adoption and quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: a systematic analysis in two dermatology journals (2009)What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal? (1998)Poor-quality medical research: what can journals do? (2002)How to Review a Manuscript: A "Down-to-Earth" Approach (2004)How to review a manuscript (2010)Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system (1977)Factors Influencing Publication of Research Results (1992)Shall we Really do it Again? The Powerful Concept of Replication is Neglected in the Social Sciences (2009)The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation (1991)The Science of Reviewing Researcha (1993)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1971Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system790 cited
  • 1994Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine324 cited
  • 1974Peer review in biomedical publication241 cited
  • 2002How I Review an Original Scientific Article117 cited
  • 1996Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde84 cited

Cited by

  • 2004Mentoring79 cited
  • 2004Thirty Years of Impact Factor and the Journal22 cited
  • 2004Assessing the Performance of a Medical Journal21 cited
  • 2012Seven Reasons Not to Be a Peer Reviewer—And Why These Reasons Are Wrong20 cited
  • 2012A quantitative study on the effectiveness of peer review for academic journals19 cited
  • 2003Impact Factor and the Journal14 cited
  • 2004Peer‐Reviewed Publication: A View from Inside10 cited
  • 2011Revisar un artículo para Radiología: quién y cómo8 cited
  • 2004Research Program Peer Review: Purposes, Principles, Practices, Protocols6 cited

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