SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Criticism of peer review and ways to improve it
16 references·0 citing·43 second hop
Criticism of peer review and ways to improve it (2013)Criticism of peer review and ways to impr…Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications (2012)Misconduct accounts for the m…Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors (2011)Writing a narrative biomedica…Reviewing Manuscripts for Peer-Review Journals: A Primer for Novice and Seasoned Reviewers (2011)Reviewing Manuscripts for Pee…Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey (2011)Honorary and ghost authorship…From QUOROM to PRISMA: A Survey of High-Impact Medical Journals' Instructions to Authors and a Review of Systematic Reviews in Anesthesia Literature (2011)From QUOROM to PRISMA: A Surv…A Systematic Review of Research on the Meaning, Ethics and Practices of Authorship across Scholarly Disciplines (2011)A Systematic Review of Resear…Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial (2010)Effect on peer review of tell…Classical peer review: an empty gun (2010)Classical peer review: an emp…Scientific Journal Publishing: Yearly Volume and Open Access Availability. (2009)Scientific Journal Publishing…The ups and downs of peer review (2007)The ups and downs of peer rev…Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)Editorial peer review for imp…The trouble with medical journals (2006)The trouble with medical jour…Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Peer review: a flawed process…Author Perception of Peer Review (2002)Author Perception of Peer Rev…Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism (1990)Peer Review in 18th-Century S…Guidelines on Authorship of Medical Papers (1986)Guidelines on Authorship of M…Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction (1992)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. (2008)The elephant in the living room: or extending the conversation about the politics of evidence (2009)Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial (2011)When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable (1997)How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data (2009)How to do a meta‐analysis (2010)The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013) (2016)Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by Nature Index journals (2018)Qualitative Research Methods (2021)Scientists behaving badly (2005)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank (2013)Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? (2013)Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition (2016)International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (1990)Prevalence of Articles With Honorary Authors and Ghost Authors in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals (1998)Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication (2018)Over-optimization of academic publishing metrics: observing Goodhart's Law in action (2019)The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access (2004)Study on the economic and technical evolution of the scientific publication markets in Europe (2006)Ten-Year Cross-Disciplinary Comparison of the Growth of Open Access and How it Increases Research Citation Impact (2006)Delayed open access: An overlooked high‐impact category of openly available scientific literature (2013)The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review (2016)A survey on scholarly data: From big data perspective (2017)The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1991)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Requisitos uniformes para manuscritos submetidos a periódicos biomédicos: escrevendo e editando para publicações biomédicas (2006)Scientific Utopia: I. Opening Scientific Communication (2012)How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications (2014)The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review (2016)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)The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review (1990)Effects of Editorial Peer Review (2002)We Have to Break Up (2009)Editorial: Review Articles, Systematic Reviews, Meta-Analysis, and the Updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 Guidelines (2021)Writing narrative style literature reviews (2015)Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements (2019)SANRA—a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles (2019)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2012Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications1,231 cited
  • 2011Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors800 cited
  • 2006Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals794 cited
  • 2011Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey477 cited
  • 2011A Systematic Review of Research on the Meaning, Ethics and Practices of Authorship across Scholarly Disciplines394 cited
  • 1990Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism350 cited
  • 2007Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies312 cited
  • 2007The ups and downs of peer review296 cited
  • 2006The trouble with medical journals215 cited
  • 2009Scientific Journal Publishing: Yearly Volume and Open Access Availability.193 cited
  • 2010Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial163 cited
  • 2002Author Perception of Peer Review140 cited
  • 2010Classical peer review: an empty gun134 cited
  • 2011Reviewing Manuscripts for Peer-Review Journals: A Primer for Novice and Seasoned Reviewers125 cited
  • 1986

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

Guidelines on Authorship of Medical Papers
118 cited
  • 2011From QUOROM to PRISMA: A Survey of High-Impact Medical Journals' Instructions to Authors and a Review of Systematic Reviews in Anesthesia Literature101 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.