SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Editorial rejects? Novelty, schnovelty!
3 references·4 citing·32 second hop
Editorial rejects? Novelty, schnovelty! (2013)Editorial rejects? Novelty, schnovelty!Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? A quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication (2008)Do editors and referees look …Impartial Judgment by the “Gatekeepers” of Science: Fallibility and Accountability in the Peer Review Process (2003)Impartial Judgment by the “Ga…The criteria used by editors of scientific dental journals in the assessment of manuscripts submitted for publication. (1999)The criteria used by editors …Environmental sciences benefit from robust evidence irrespective of speed (2019)Environmental sciences benefi…Improving the reviewing process in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (2014)Improving the reviewing proce…Errors in science: the role of reviewers (2014)Errors in science: the role o…A new era for Journal of Biological Research-Thessaloniki (2014)A new era for Journal of Biol…Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports (1998)Positive-Outcome Bias and Other Limitations in the Outcome of Research Abstracts Submitted to a Scientific Meeting (1998)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases (2010)Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep with five legs (2011)AI-assisted peer review (2021)The Publishing Game: Getting More for Less (1981)The Assessment of Science: The Relative Merits of Post-Publication Review, the Impact Factor, and the Number of Citations (2013)Who's Afraid of Peer Review? (2013)Who are our reviewers and how do they review? The profile and work of Biological Conservation reviewers (2016)“Publicationism” and scientists’ satisfaction depend on gender, career stage and the wider academic system (2017)Fundamental problems in the peer‐review process and stakeholders' perceptions of potential suggestions for improvement (2024)Committee on publication ethics (2010)The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (1974)A Social History of Truth (1994)How long does it take for the scientific literature to purge itself of fraudulent material?: the Breuning case revisited (2010)Research Misconduct—Definitions, Manifestations and Extent (2013)What We Still Don't Know About Peer Review (2016)THE SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE:: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (2017)The nature of human altruism (2003)Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care? (2010)How to Maintain Ecological Relevance in Ecology (2015)A Citation Analysis of the Impact of Blinded Peer Review (1994)Authors' Criteria for Selecting Journals (1994)The Effects of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review (1994)Reasons Research Papers Are Rejected at Accounting Education Journals (2006)Characteristics and fate of orthodontic articles submitted for publication: An exploratory study of the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (2015)Is the English language a barrier to the non-English-speaking authors in academic publishing? (2020)Guidelines for Systematic Review in Conservation and Environmental Management (2006)1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility (2016)A manifesto for reproducible science (2017)Ten principles for generating accessible and useable COVID‐19 environmental science and a fit‐for‐purpose evidence base (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2003Impartial Judgment by the “Gatekeepers” of Science: Fallibility and Accountability in the Peer Review Process199 cited
  • 2008Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? A quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication66 cited
  • 1999The criteria used by editors of scientific dental journals in the assessment of manuscripts submitted for publication.35 cited

Cited by

  • 2014A new era for Journal of Biological Research-Thessaloniki19 cited
  • 2014Improving the reviewing process in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology16 cited
  • 2014Errors in science: the role of reviewers15 cited
  • 2019Environmental sciences benefit from robust evidence irrespective of speed14 cited

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