SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
STM report : an overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing
0 references·16 citing·57 second hopsampled
STM report : an overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing (2009)STM report : an overview of scientific an…The oligopoly’s shift to open access: How the big five academic publishers profit from article processing charges (2023)The oligopoly’s shift to open…Peer review in an Era of Evaluation (2022)Peer review in an Era of Eval…Closing the knowledge‐action gap in conservation with open science (2021)Closing the knowledge‐action …Reassembling Scholarly Communications (2020)Reassembling Scholarly Commun…Scientific Authors in a Changing World of Scholarly Communication: What Does the Future Hold? (2019)Scientific Authors in a Chang…Is It Such a Big Deal? On the Cost of Journal Use in the Digital Era (2018)Is It Such a Big Deal? On the…Future Challenges and Opportunities in Academic Publishing (2017)Future Challenges and Opportu…Small scholar‐led scholarly journals: Can they survive and thrive in an open access future? (2016)Small scholar‐led scholarly j…Rewarding reviewers – sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained (2016)Rewarding reviewers – sense o…Does ‘get visible or vanish’ herald the end of ‘publish or perish’? (2015)Does ‘get visible or vanish’ …Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials (2014)Why training and specializati…VALUE OF DATABASES OTHER THAN MEDLINE FOR RAPID HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS (2014)VALUE OF DATABASES OTHER THAN…Reference management software for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: an exploration of usage and usability (2013)Reference management software…The Enclosure and Alienation of Academic Publishing: Lessons for the Professoriate (2012)The Enclosure and Alienation …Decoupling the scholarly journal (2012)Decoupling the scholarly jour…Credit, time, and personality: The human challenges to sharing scholarly work using Web 2.0 (2012)Credit, time, and personality…Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement (1996)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomized Trials (2010)Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer? (2014)Fortifying the Corrective Nature of Post-publication Peer Review: Identifying Weaknesses, Use of Journal Clubs, and Rewarding Conscientious Behavior (2016)Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant? (2019)Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (1967)Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (1986)The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (1991)Scholarly communication trends in the digital age (2015)The impact of information and communication technologies on informal scientific communication (2015)Adopción de redes sociales por revistas científicas de ciencias sociales (2019)Nepotism and sexism in peer-review (1997)Predicting the Future with Social Media (2010)Twitter mood predicts the stock market (2011)Open Evaluation: A Vision for Entirely Transparent Post-Publication Peer Review and Rating for Science (2012)Openness and archaeology's information ecosystem (2012)Transparency in Decision Modelling: What, Why, Who and How? (2019)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)An interpretive structural modelling of the features influencing researchers’ selection of reference management software (2016)Buhos: A web-based systematic literature review management software (2018)Teachers’ Perspectives on Students’ Cultural Diversity: A Systematic Literature Review (2023)What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal? (1998)Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research (2014)The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing (2015)Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews (2016)Peer review: The experience and views of early career researchers (2017)Ten considerations for open peer review (2018)The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. (1968)The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. (1971)Few Open Access Journals Are Compliant with Plan S (2019)The Two-Way Street of Open Access Journal Publishing: Flip It and Reverse It (2019)Mapping the German Diamond Open Access Journal Landscape (2024)Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (1964)The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems (1976)An analysis of revising article processing charges for open access journals between 2018 and 2020 (2020)Scientists are working overtime: when do scientists download scientific papers? (2022)Open access movement in the scholarly world: Pathways for libraries in developing countries (2023)Little Science, Big Science (1963)The Matthew Effect in Science, II: Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property (1988)The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis (2015)Introduction: The Politics of Open Access — Decolonizing Research or Corporate Capture? (2021)The oligopoly of open access publishing (2023)Beyond Power Calculations (2014)Promoting an open research culture (2015)A manifesto for reproducible science (2017)Can I afford to publish? A dilemma for African scholars (2021)Open science (2023)Bridging the knowledge-action gap: A framework for co-producing actionable knowledge (2024)The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era (2015)A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers (2020)Does it pay to pay? A comparison of the benefits of open-access publishing across various sub-fields in biology (2024)Evaluating the linguistic coverage of OpenAlex : An assessment of metadata accuracy and completeness (2025)The present and future of peer review: Ideas, interventions, and evidence (2025)
this work references cited by second hop· second hop is a sample of the most-cited connections

References

No references inside the corpus for this window.

Cited by

  • 2016Rewarding reviewers – sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained124 cited
  • 2023The oligopoly’s shift to open access: How the big five academic publishers profit from article processing charges120 cited
  • 2013Reference management software for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: an exploration of usage and usability102 cited
  • 2012Decoupling the scholarly journal85 cited
  • 2021Closing the knowledge‐action gap in conservation with open science80 cited
  • 2014Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials75 cited
  • 2012Credit, time, and personality: The human challenges to sharing scholarly work using Web 2.060 cited
  • 2018Is It Such a Big Deal? On the Cost of Journal Use in the Digital Era57 cited
  • 2016Small scholar‐led scholarly journals: Can they survive and thrive in an open access future?39 cited
  • 2017Future Challenges and Opportunities in Academic Publishing39 cited
  • 2020Reassembling Scholarly Communications39 cited
  • 2015Does ‘get visible or vanish’ herald the end of ‘publish or perish’?38 cited
  • 2019Scientific Authors in a Changing World of Scholarly Communication: What Does the Future Hold?36 cited
  • 2012

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

The Enclosure and Alienation of Academic Publishing: Lessons for the Professoriate
31 cited
  • 2014VALUE OF DATABASES OTHER THAN MEDLINE FOR RAPID HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS30 cited
  • 2022Peer review in an Era of Evaluation29 cited