SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Are Reviewers’ Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports
9 references·1 citing·45 second hop
Are Reviewers’ Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports (2015)Are Reviewers’ Scores Influenced by Citat…Longitudinal Trends in the Performance of Scientific Peer Reviewers (2010)Longitudinal Trends in the Pe…Implementation of a Journal Peer Reviewer Stratification System Based on Quality and Reliability (2010)Implementation of a Journal P…Peer review process in medical research publications: Language and content comments (2009)Peer review process in medica…Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study (2008)Perceptions of Ethical Proble…Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Peer review: a flawed process…‘Why not give us the full story?’: functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers (2003)‘Why not give us the full sto…The use of dedicated methodology and statistical reviewers for peer review: A content analysis of comments to authors made by methodology and regular reviewers (2002)The use of dedicated methodol…The effect of dedicated methodology and statistical review on published manuscript quality (2002)The effect of dedicated metho…Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviewers (2002)Effect of structured workshop…Is a journal's ranking related to the reviewer's academic impact? (An empirical study based on Publons) (2021)Is a journal's ranking relate…The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation (1991)Reliability of Editors' Subjective Quality Ratings of Peer Reviews of Manuscripts (1998)Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for Assessing Peer Reviews of Manuscripts (1999)Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial (2012)Manuscript Rejection (2014)Effects of Experimental Interventions to Improve the Biomedical Peer‐Review Process: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis (2021)EXPERT AND EXCEPTIONAL PERFORMANCE: Evidence of Maximal Adaptation to Task Constraints (1996)Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. (1999)The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (2006)Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials (2014)What happened to Popperian falsification? Publishing neutral and negative findings (2016)Politeness : Some Universals in Language Usage (1987)Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings (1992)Genre analysis : English in academic and research settings. By John M. Swales (Cambridge applied linguistics series.) Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Pp. 260. Cloth $34.50, paper $15.95. (1993)Publishing research in English-language journals: Attitudes, strategies and difficulties of multilingual scholars of medicine (2014)Chinese academics writing for publication: English teachers as text mediators (2016)Double‐blind peer review affects reviewer ratings and editor decisions at an ecology journal (2023)An introduction to functional grammar (1986)Introduction to functional grammar . By M. A. K. Halliday London & Baltimore: Edward Arnold, 1985. Pp. xxxv, 387. (1989)The global spread of English, scientific communication and ESP: questions of equity, access and domain loss (2007)Evaluative language in peer review referee reports (2008)Opening up BMJ peer review (1999)The politics of publication (2003)Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial (2004)The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature (2010)Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM (2019)Responsible Conduct of Research (2022)Effect of Written Feedback by Editors on Quality of Reviews (2002)Review of the Ethics and Etiquettes of Time Management of Manuscript Peer Review (2014)Impact of peer review on discussion of study limitations and strength of claims in randomized trial reports: a before and after study (2019)Instruments for Assessing the Quality of Drug Studies Published in the Medical Literature (1994)Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine (1994)Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? (2000)Deficiencies of effectiveness of intervention studies in veterinary medicine: a cross-sectional survey of ten leading veterinary and medical journals (2016)What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis (2020)Journal Prestige, Publication Bias, and Other Characteristics Associated With Citation of Published Studies in Peer-Reviewed Journals (2002)Readability in the British Journal of Surgery (2007)Scientific and statistical reviews of manuscripts submitted to Nursing Research: Comparison of completeness, quality, and usefulness (2010)Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial (2021)An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output (2005)Index aims for fair ranking of scientists (2005)Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey (2006)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)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2006Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals794 cited
  • 2008Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study135 cited
  • 2003‘Why not give us the full story?’: functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers134 cited
  • 2009Peer review process in medical research publications: Language and content comments107 cited
  • 2010Longitudinal Trends in the Performance of Scientific Peer Reviewers63 cited
  • 2002Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviewers53 cited
  • 2002The use of dedicated methodology and statistical reviewers for peer review: A content analysis of comments to authors made by methodology and regular reviewers33 cited
  • 2010Implementation of a Journal Peer Reviewer Stratification System Based on Quality and Reliability24 cited
  • 2002The effect of dedicated methodology and statistical review on published manuscript quality21 cited

Cited by

  • 2021Is a journal's ranking related to the reviewer's academic impact? (An empirical study based on Publons)8 cited

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