Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

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

8 references·16 citing·40 second hop

FromToDepth

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
1999Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial415 cited
2000Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial261 cited
1999Opening up BMJ peer review191 cited
1999Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for Assessing Peer Reviews of Manuscripts177 cited
2006Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors147 cited
2006Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study88 cited

Cited by

2018Ten considerations for open peer review81 cited
2024Paper mill challenges: past, present, and future80 cited
2018Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement67 cited
2020Innovative Strategies for Peer Review54 cited
2016Author‐suggested reviewers: gender differences and influences on the peer review process at an ecology journal42 cited
2020Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ

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

42 cited

2014Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer?38 cited

2016Towards an open science publishing platform34 cited

2016Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process31 cited

2025The academic impact of Open Science: a scoping review26 cited

2017Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?22 cited

2014Opening peer-review: the democracy of science19 cited

2020Is the quality of reviews reflected in editors' and authors' satisfaction with peer review? A cross‐sectional study in 12 journals across four research fields19 cited

2019How to evaluate reviewers – the international orthopedics reviewers score (INOR-RS)18 cited

2025Peer reviews of peer reviews: A randomized controlled trial and other experiments18 cited

2021Which peer reviewers voluntarily reveal their identity to authors? Insights into the consequences of open-identities peer review17 cited